Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Christ and the Constitution
God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties
Men receive blessings by obedience to God's laws, and without obedience there is no blessing. Before the final triumphal return of the Lord, the question as to whether we may save our constitutional republic is simply based on two factors: the number of patriots and the extent of their obedience. That the Lord desires to save this nation that he raised up, there is no doubt. But that he leaves it up to us, with his help, is the awful reality.
There were men at Valley Forge who weren't sure how the revolution would end, but they were in a much better position to save their own souls and their country than those timid men whose major concern was deciding which side was going to win, or how to avoid controversy. The basic purpose of life is to prove ourselves, not to be with the majority when it is wrong. Those who hesitate to get into the fight for freedom because they're not sure if we're going to win fail to realize that we will win in the long run, and for good. Time is on the side of truth, and truth is eternal. Those who are fighting against freedom and other eternal principles of right may feel confident now, but they are shortsighted.
This is still God's world. The forces of evil, working through some mortals, have made a mess of a good part of it. But it is still God's world. In due time, when each of us has had a chance to prove himself—including whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom—God will interject himself, and the final and eternal victory shall be for free agency. And then shall those weak-willed souls on the sidelines and those who took the wrong but temporarily popular course lament their decisions.
--Ezra Taft Benson
God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties
[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 325.)
Complete text at The Watchtower
Men receive blessings by obedience to God's laws, and without obedience there is no blessing. Before the final triumphal return of the Lord, the question as to whether we may save our constitutional republic is simply based on two factors: the number of patriots and the extent of their obedience. That the Lord desires to save this nation that he raised up, there is no doubt. But that he leaves it up to us, with his help, is the awful reality.
There were men at Valley Forge who weren't sure how the revolution would end, but they were in a much better position to save their own souls and their country than those timid men whose major concern was deciding which side was going to win, or how to avoid controversy. The basic purpose of life is to prove ourselves, not to be with the majority when it is wrong. Those who hesitate to get into the fight for freedom because they're not sure if we're going to win fail to realize that we will win in the long run, and for good. Time is on the side of truth, and truth is eternal. Those who are fighting against freedom and other eternal principles of right may feel confident now, but they are shortsighted.
This is still God's world. The forces of evil, working through some mortals, have made a mess of a good part of it. But it is still God's world. In due time, when each of us has had a chance to prove himself—including whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom—God will interject himself, and the final and eternal victory shall be for free agency. And then shall those weak-willed souls on the sidelines and those who took the wrong but temporarily popular course lament their decisions.
--Ezra Taft Benson
God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties
[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974], 325.)
Complete text at The Watchtower
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Why We Need Martial Law
.
Martial Law was declared November 14, 1997 in the state of Utah.
Its property was seized by the State of Utah on November 28, 1997 AD, 14 days after Martial Law was declared by the Governor of the State of Utah because it was under the influence of racketeering corrupt organizations, and to stop the "paper money" false coin and fictitious credit banking schemes advanced by those in rebellion against the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and the United States of America.
A federal grand jury at 350 South Main Street in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, twice indicted the Federal Reserve Bank in this district-the San Francisco District, for issuing false securities in the State of Utah, which are in fact not redeemable in gold and silver coin of the United States or in foreign coin of regulated value.
The state of Utah remains under martial law to this day but the conspiracy continues to advance with the acquiescence of the vast majority of the community who, like a deer in the headlights, fail, indeed, to accomplish that which is expedient or otherwise chose to do nothing, or worse, to actively participate in the rebellion.
An Essay by John Kaminski
The American government is criminal enterprise, and American law enforcement is complicit in the crime. The only way to stop the continuing crime spree is by a military takeover and a declaration of martial law. Hundreds of cops, attorneys and judges need to be in jail.
The military needs to investigate virtually every law enforcement operation in America. Every town, city, county and state in America is afflicted by criminal behavior in its law enforcement and court apparatus.
In addition, there is another important reason for a military takeover, and that is to redeploy our forces to defend our country, rather than to misuse and abuse them by plundering innocent nations for the criminal corporations who control so many of our politicians.
Click here to read the full essay.
Martial Law was declared November 14, 1997 in the state of Utah.
Its property was seized by the State of Utah on November 28, 1997 AD, 14 days after Martial Law was declared by the Governor of the State of Utah because it was under the influence of racketeering corrupt organizations, and to stop the "paper money" false coin and fictitious credit banking schemes advanced by those in rebellion against the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and the United States of America.
A federal grand jury at 350 South Main Street in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, twice indicted the Federal Reserve Bank in this district-the San Francisco District, for issuing false securities in the State of Utah, which are in fact not redeemable in gold and silver coin of the United States or in foreign coin of regulated value.
The state of Utah remains under martial law to this day but the conspiracy continues to advance with the acquiescence of the vast majority of the community who, like a deer in the headlights, fail, indeed, to accomplish that which is expedient or otherwise chose to do nothing, or worse, to actively participate in the rebellion.
An Essay by John Kaminski
The American government is criminal enterprise, and American law enforcement is complicit in the crime. The only way to stop the continuing crime spree is by a military takeover and a declaration of martial law. Hundreds of cops, attorneys and judges need to be in jail.
The military needs to investigate virtually every law enforcement operation in America. Every town, city, county and state in America is afflicted by criminal behavior in its law enforcement and court apparatus.
In addition, there is another important reason for a military takeover, and that is to redeploy our forces to defend our country, rather than to misuse and abuse them by plundering innocent nations for the criminal corporations who control so many of our politicians.
Click here to read the full essay.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Utah Governor De Jure Jailed
Utah Supreme Court says authority is de facto.
West Valley City Case No. C 04 06941
Utah Supreme Court Case No. 20050475-SC
On June 7, 2005, in a West Valley City Municipal Unofficial Justice court, after being denied a jury trial or witnesses on his behalf, Keith L Stoney, Unofficial Justice, sentenced Thomas B. Ginter to ten days in jail, denied his motion of appeal, subpoenas, a trial de novo, confiscated his property, and sent him to jail, in violation of all the provisions of Article I Section 12 of the Utah Constitution.
Lawrence Rey Topham, acting Governor of the State of Utah, under martial law, was then summoned to the bench by Unofficial Justice Stoney, held in contempt, sentenced to five days in jail for disobeying his Unofficial order not to practice law, and was taken to jail for helping Thomas B. Ginter prepare his defense.
A response in opposition to the petitioners writ of prohibition by the Attorney Generals office, in the Utah Supreme Court, cites State of Utah v. Sawyers, 819 P.2d 806 (Utah 1991) stating that The Court held that under the de facto doctrine, the acts of one who assumes official authority and exercises duties under color of a valid appointment or election are valid where the community acquiesces to his authority.
West Valley City Case No. C 04 06941
Utah Supreme Court Case No. 20050475-SC
On June 7, 2005, in a West Valley City Municipal Unofficial Justice court, after being denied a jury trial or witnesses on his behalf, Keith L Stoney, Unofficial Justice, sentenced Thomas B. Ginter to ten days in jail, denied his motion of appeal, subpoenas, a trial de novo, confiscated his property, and sent him to jail, in violation of all the provisions of Article I Section 12 of the Utah Constitution.
Lawrence Rey Topham, acting Governor of the State of Utah, under martial law, was then summoned to the bench by Unofficial Justice Stoney, held in contempt, sentenced to five days in jail for disobeying his Unofficial order not to practice law, and was taken to jail for helping Thomas B. Ginter prepare his defense.
A response in opposition to the petitioners writ of prohibition by the Attorney Generals office, in the Utah Supreme Court, cites State of Utah v. Sawyers, 819 P.2d 806 (Utah 1991) stating that The Court held that under the de facto doctrine, the acts of one who assumes official authority and exercises duties under color of a valid appointment or election are valid where the community acquiesces to his authority.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Alpha and Omega
They Chewed the Constitution to a Pulp
Now they are spitting it out in our face! The unofficial misonduct is clear, and the Bar Number seems to mirror the agenda:
Mark L. Shurtleff, unofficial Attorney General #4666
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
Case No. 20050475-SC
Re: West Valley City Case No. C 04 06941
State of Utah respondent’s response in opposition to petition for
Writ of Prohibition.
“Second, Petitioner contends that none of the named defendants have any authority to act because they have not filed their respective oaths of office. This argument has been considered and soundly rejected by this Court. In State of Utah v Sawyers, 819 P.2d 806 (Utah 1991). The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the country attorney did not have authority to prosecute him, and consequently that the district court did not have jurisdiction over his criminal case, because the prosecuting county attorney had not complied with the statutory requirements qualifying him to hold office. The Court held that under the de facto doctrine, the acts on one who assumes official authority and exercises duties under color of a valid appointment or election are valid where the community acquiesces to his authority." (My empahsis)
You can learn more about the above citation at AG Opinion Number 91-016
This is a bunch of bunk!
Let me see if I have this straight. The people hold an election. Those elected fail to qualify by taking and subscribing an oath to uphold and obey the Constitution, then operate a de facto government capriciously ruling with de facto doctrine without any authority derived from the people, through the Constitution, and administer unconstitutional acts (theft of property without due process) to people who, in good faith, expect these elected officials will honor and obey and defend the law of the land, who then argue that the community acquiesces? to their unofficial misconduct forced at the end of a barrel?
I don’t think so!
Applicable statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist if the person chosen for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law. Parker v. Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
There remains little necessary to prove that unconstitutional acts are illegal, rather than legal.
What happens when a government, federal, state, county legislate then enforces Acts in opposition with the Constitution? It becomes de facto, a de facto government is despotism and tyranny, and a de facto officer can be removed without being impeached. So view what Black's Law says about de facto.
"De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof."
De facto judge. A judge who functions under color of authority but whose authority is defective in some procedural form.
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation."
"De facto Doctrine will validate, on grounds of public policy and prevention of failure of public justice, the acts of officials who function under color of law."
And then, there is 'Color' of law. Black's clears the word up.
Color. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext."
Under our contracts with government, the terms were written, clarified and defined by those who signed the document, the States ratifying it understanding its provisions, and the people authorizing its ratification, sensible of the limited rights so surrendered. As with any contract, the provisions are binding until changed by those authorized to change it. The ones authorized do not include the president of the United States, any congressman, a single State, or a judge including the Supreme Court. To think otherwise is to accept de facto despotism.
It’s time for a little Homeland Security folks!
More to follow when I get my blood pressure under control!
This is the end, and a new beginning.
God speed the shot heard around the world.
Ron Robinson
A Majority of One at One O’Clock
"A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice; but in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people choose at stated periods, should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact; if they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil; but when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not, constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm."
--Robert Yates 1788
Now they are spitting it out in our face! The unofficial misonduct is clear, and the Bar Number seems to mirror the agenda:
Mark L. Shurtleff, unofficial Attorney General #4666
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
Case No. 20050475-SC
Re: West Valley City Case No. C 04 06941
State of Utah respondent’s response in opposition to petition for
Writ of Prohibition.
“Second, Petitioner contends that none of the named defendants have any authority to act because they have not filed their respective oaths of office. This argument has been considered and soundly rejected by this Court. In State of Utah v Sawyers, 819 P.2d 806 (Utah 1991). The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the country attorney did not have authority to prosecute him, and consequently that the district court did not have jurisdiction over his criminal case, because the prosecuting county attorney had not complied with the statutory requirements qualifying him to hold office. The Court held that under the de facto doctrine, the acts on one who assumes official authority and exercises duties under color of a valid appointment or election are valid where the community acquiesces to his authority." (My empahsis)
You can learn more about the above citation at AG Opinion Number 91-016
This is a bunch of bunk!
Let me see if I have this straight. The people hold an election. Those elected fail to qualify by taking and subscribing an oath to uphold and obey the Constitution, then operate a de facto government capriciously ruling with de facto doctrine without any authority derived from the people, through the Constitution, and administer unconstitutional acts (theft of property without due process) to people who, in good faith, expect these elected officials will honor and obey and defend the law of the land, who then argue that the community acquiesces? to their unofficial misconduct forced at the end of a barrel?
I don’t think so!
Applicable statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist if the person chosen for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law. Parker v. Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
There remains little necessary to prove that unconstitutional acts are illegal, rather than legal.
What happens when a government, federal, state, county legislate then enforces Acts in opposition with the Constitution? It becomes de facto, a de facto government is despotism and tyranny, and a de facto officer can be removed without being impeached. So view what Black's Law says about de facto.
"De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof."
De facto judge. A judge who functions under color of authority but whose authority is defective in some procedural form.
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation."
"De facto Doctrine will validate, on grounds of public policy and prevention of failure of public justice, the acts of officials who function under color of law."
And then, there is 'Color' of law. Black's clears the word up.
Color. An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext."
Under our contracts with government, the terms were written, clarified and defined by those who signed the document, the States ratifying it understanding its provisions, and the people authorizing its ratification, sensible of the limited rights so surrendered. As with any contract, the provisions are binding until changed by those authorized to change it. The ones authorized do not include the president of the United States, any congressman, a single State, or a judge including the Supreme Court. To think otherwise is to accept de facto despotism.
It’s time for a little Homeland Security folks!
More to follow when I get my blood pressure under control!
This is the end, and a new beginning.
God speed the shot heard around the world.
Ron Robinson
A Majority of One at One O’Clock
"A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice; but in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people choose at stated periods, should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact; if they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil; but when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not, constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm."
--Robert Yates 1788
