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
# posted by americanfreeenterprise @ 11:26 PM 
