We Hold These Truths…
"Know the Truth and the Truth shall make you Free"
Apparent Collusion to Overthrow our 50 Republics
(Subversion of the Peoples Rights, Deception, Lies, Vacated Offices,
Pretended Officers & Judges with no Oath of Office)
In the Public's best
interest we are a grass roots coalition of the People concerned and focused
to see that whatever form the government may choose to take that we do our
part to hold government officials accountable to the law, while also doing
our part to preserve the Peoples Rights from further infringement.
As an Organization our purpose is to promote individual freedom, liberty and
safety through the implementation of healthy boundaries to define the proper
role of governmental action, by preserving the Peoples Right to hold their
servants accountable for any violations of the Publics Trust while acting in
office of responsibility. Unalienable rights cannot be contracted away. A De Jure body of action cannot be deprived from the people. Any public official
attempting to deprive the Public of their Unalienable Rights is guilty of
Treason against the Principles of Truth, the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution, the Magna Charta and all other charters and statements
affirming the Peoples Rights.
Thus it is the focus of the Common Law Judicature Reformation Movement to
Support the People's Unalienable Rights in order to help support and
maintain the proper balance between the Peoples Rights and the government's
responsibility to conduct proper business.
Our Founders knew these Republics, with Freedoms and Rights being fully
preserved by the People, could not be long maintained without the constant
vigilance of the People to ensure that neither the Federal nor the Republican
government as formulated in the country or the state did not attempt to
violate the People's Unalienable Rights in an effort to become
the peoples master.
The purpose of this position is to intelligently offer guidance, and input
to take responsible action in the effort of coalescing a constituency of
like minded individuals through the promotion of enlightened, balanced and
progressive reforms, for the purpose of educating the public concerning the
"systems" attempt to abdicate the People's Unalienable Sovereign Status. Through the process of teaching and enlightenment our focus is to defend
against the conjunction of collusive influences and forces that have worked
together to craft, what are in actuality void adhesion contracts to
systematically deprive the People of their Rights.
Our Country's founding commenced a great experiment that is based upon the
concept of a union formed by separate Republics that are built up by the
People, for the People and of the People, with all Freedoms and Rights being
retained by the People.
These Rights and
Freedoms were freely held as the Unalienable Rights of the People,
so long as in the exercise of their rights they did not cause
injury to another. We are dedicated to the maintaining of the People's
Rights.
It is a privilege to stand as an advocate of the People's Rights. Common Law
as the People's Law is the People's Sure Reservation of Rights in Full
against any motion or actions taken by any de facto officers or governmental
body acting outside of the Peoples Mandate or attempting to set aside their
Constitutional Mandates in order to infringe on the People's Rights.
In the pursuit of these ends, we have noted the following events occurring
in almost silence within our midst:
The failure of those claiming to be “Public Officers” to follow the law is
not light matter.
The whole fabric upon which our society rests has long been abused as a
result of men behind the scenes colluding, and conspiring to deprive the
People of a Lawful and de jure Government. Such acts as a whole could at
worst be characterized as Treason or willful disregard of the Public Trust
and at best be characterized as either ignorance.
The flaunting of Constitutional Requirements in what amounts to Constructive
Treason, with most public offices now being left officially vacant or rather
occupied by Usurpers who have apparently pledged their loyalty to others
besides their pledge to Uphold the Constitution. This state of Affairs has
been ongoing now for around 30 years, throughout the country. The “Official”
court systems when confronted with their own non-compliance on these issues
in Utah, effectively stated that they hold their reign by the peoples
acquiescence and that they are a de facto body in place [by the power of
force] until the People say otherwise. This not an acceptable answer
in the discharge of Public Responsibility on the part of our courts, judges
or court officers; nor is this answer an acceptable reply for any other
“Public Official” representing the People.
To assure that our form of government is preserved, a proper Oath of Office
is mandated from our elected officials nationwide by compliance with Federal
and State Constitutions, and Government Code. Further, when adhering to the
Law, if the oath is not orally taken, and subscribed to in the proper and
perfect form as dictated by the State Constitution, an official is lawfully
and constitutionally prohibited from taking office. Widespread flaunting of
the law and disregarding this provision of our constitutions raises many
questions and red flags.
It appears that at present very few if any of the “officials” are now
lawfully occupying positions in the respective 50 State governments having
taken the Constitutionally prescribed oath of office. This means, that as
whole – across the country, our De jure government has been displaced by
usurpers, so that now, it appears that as a general event, we the People have
no legitimate constitutionally compliant representative. Disturbing is the
fact that now we find our government is being run by usurpers that will run,
cover and hide; while doing everything to deprive the Constitutionally
Compliant True Officers of their Lawful Position as these men are focused on
the restoration of our True, Lawful, De Jure, Republican form of government.
Evidence is now apparent that the Oath of Office provisions mandated for our
Constitutional Republic as provided for in the Federal Constitution has been
purposely disregarded along with the provisions contained within the 50
State’s Constitutions. It seems almost universally apparent that our elected
representatives have, for one reason or another, refused to take the oath of
office set forth in their respective Constitutions. This gives the People
not a Constitutional Republican form of government as contemplated under
Article IV, Section Four of the United States Constitution, or as
contemplated under any of the respective state constitutions respectively. What we have is a government by unadulterated power and in contempt of the
people and our Countries State and Federal Constitutions.
We have in each of our states a constitution that stands in support of a
republican form of government. The United States Constitution mandates that
the states are to be a Republic in Section IV, Clause 4. What party would be
best charged with implementing the mandates of the United States
Constitution?
In response to inquiries following up on this matter, we have been given the
following response from the Federal Government:
In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) the Supreme Court established
the doctrine that questions arising under Article IV, Section 4 are
political, not judicial, in character and that ‘’it rests with Congress to
decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as
its republican character.’’ In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 729
(1869) it was held that the action of the President in setting up
provisional governments at the conclusion of the Civil War was justified, if
at all, only as an exercise of his powers as Commander-in-Chief and that
such governments were to be regarded merely as provisional regimes to
perform the functions of government pending action by Congress. On the
ground that the issues were not justifiable, the Court in the early part of
this century refused to pass on a number of challenges to state governmental
reforms and thus made the clause in effect noncognizable by the courts in
any matter, a status from which the Court’s opinion in Baker v. Carr, 369
U.S. 186, 218 -232 (1962), despite its substantial curbing of the political
question doctrine, did not release it. In the Court’s view, the guarantee
clause questions which arose under Article IV, Section 4, were nonjusticiable because resolution of them had been committed to Congress and
not because they involved matters of state governmental structure. In short,
the Supreme Court took a hands-off attitude when it came to the
establishment of a republican form of government in any of the several
states. (Perhaps "political expediency" dictated this result, as the Supreme
Court has allowed that "doctrine" to govern its decisions far too often.)
Similarly, in Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849) the Court
indicated that it rested with Congress to determine upon the means proper to
fulfill the guarantee of protection to the States against domestic violence. Chief Justice Taney declared that Congress might have placed it in the power
of a court to decide when the contingency had happened which required the
Federal Government to interfere, but that instead Congress had by the act of
February 28, 1795, authorized the President to call out the militia in case
of insurrection against the government of any State. It followed, said
Taney, that the President ‘’must, of necessity, decide which is the
government, and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it, before he can
perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress’’, which
determination was not subject to review by the courts.
More recently, however, the Court speaking through Justice O’Connor has
raised, without deciding, the possibility that the guarantee clause is
justiciable and is a constraint upon Congress’ power to regulate the
activities of the States. New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408,
2432-2433 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991). The
opinions draw support from a powerful argument for utilizing the guarantee
clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal power. Merritt, The
Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988).
On the occasions that the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to address
Article IV, Section 4, it would appear the issues have been narrowly
crafted, as is normal with the Supreme Court. In any event, the possibility
that every branch of the federal government is in someway and somehow
responsible for enforcing this guarantee appears evident. So who is going to
step up to the plate and deliver the hit?
The Necessary and Proper clause found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of
the United States Constitution informs Congress that they shall make all
laws necessary and proper to carry out the powers given to it. It would
appear that, it would be Congress’ duty to enact legislation to provide for
any situation arising under Article IV, Section 4. Then, it would be the
executive department’s duty to enforce that law, with the Supreme Court
following close behind to insure constitutional mandates and safeguards have
been followed. Anyway, that’s the theory . . . . .. and yet no one or party
has stepped up to the plate in order to take action, in order to remedy this
constitutional crisis; or at this point it appears that “our public
officials” largely may well be more of the problem rather than the solution
Recurrendum est ad extraordinarium quando non valet ordinarium.
A maxim of law states that when you have recourse to the extraordinary, when
the ordinary fails. In this case it seems that an extraordinary remedy; such
as the convening of the necessary Peoples Common Law Jury Courts to decide
these matters, being our “public officials” appear to be either unwilling or
unable to do so.
These dutiful public minded Sovereigns who desiring to uphold the public
good, have researched these matters and have Constitutionally fulfilled all
of the necessary requirements, to uphold our Republican form of government
as mandated by both state and federal constitutions. Being it seems the
courts are saying that until we stand up and say no to this fraud as a
People they will take no action!
Hence the courts are now to this degree a party to this apparent attempt to
overthrow our Republican forms of government as mandated by all of our
constitutions. Further the failure of our new courts to be set up under De jure authority is further compounded by the service of “Judges” who are
themselves without a lawful oath of office on file; which then results in a
vacancy of the judgeship after the lapse of the constitutionally mandated
filing period. It seems apparent that those who cannot comply with the
simplest of requirements should not be left to determine the manner or
condition of future constitutional compliance. In an effort to not throw out
the baby with the bathwater, it is important that this whole issue be
reviewed in order to determine culpability and thereby determine those
individuals who have been acting with full knowledge of this current
subversive action which marches forward as an affront, to the trust and
honor that has largely been given to those who are supposed to be acting in
the publics best interests.
Culpability is given on the following counts. 1) Failure to comply with
constitutional mandate; 2) Failure to ensure compliance of junior court
members with constitutional mandates; 3) Masquerading as a lawful, de jure
public official; 4) for those adjudged as having vacated their public trust
and office – the embezzlement of public funds; 5) Failure to uphold
constitutional monetary requirements – by the way of allowing
Unconstitutional Monetary Laws to stand, whole allowing infringements on
Federal, State Civil Monetary Codes to pass without comment or any suitable
type of compliance or enforcement effort; even after the People have brought
the matter forward for review and redress of both public and private wrongs
in regard to this matter.
Pardon or clemency is contemplated to be granted upon those who’s acts were
most shrouded in ignorance or those who are able to demonstrate that their
acts have been to support the People, through demonstrating their efforts at
either reforming or restoring the corruption manifested under the current
system has been either blocked or stymied by a corrupt system.
The stand of our courts and justices has long been that ignorance of the law
is no excuse. Under the current state of affairs throughout the whole
country going from state to state; it appears to be highly unusual where we
can in fact find an individual serving in our “official branches of
government who have complied with their states De jure Lawful Oath of Office
provisions. Where in fact find compliance, we find that the Usurpers as part
of the defacto establisment, stand with vigilance to cover and impede the
efforts of those would work to restore true efficacy and lawfulness in the
fulfillment of all common law provisions and constitutional requirements.
Most disturbing is these individuals who are therefore acting without
authority cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of their acts if and when
questioned being they can only act as an occupational regime using the power
of Police Action to enforce their illegal enactments; while they betray the
public trust, as either a knowing tool or an ignoramus used to perpetrate
the defraudement of the People and the attempted destruction of our
Republican form of government, in an effort to empower the private banks and
the corrupted interests of “public servants” out to further their own
interests at the publics expense. Which fraud and malfeasance if we allow it
is destructive through the implementation of public policy as a sham in an
effort to deceive the People into delivering their trust to unauthorized
officers of a de facto regime.
The Federal Constitution Article IV, Section 4 reads as follows: "The United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
The language is unmistakable. Every State within the Union of the United
States is guaranteed a republican form of government. And, this guarantee is
extended to each State by the government of the United States. In fact,
every territory which applied for statehood was obligated to form a
republican form of government and operate there as to the satisfaction of
the United States Government, for a period of time, prior to being admitted
as a State of the Union.
Reviewing the Oath of Office situation as it pertains to our unique federal
constitution in relation to the separate states, specifically we will look
at evidence gathered from California, Alaska and Utah. First though, lets
look first at these issues through the perspective of California:
In fact, if one is inclined to read the Act of Admission for California one
would find that when admitting California to the Union, Congress "found
[California] to be republican in its form of government". This could easily
be identified by Congress upon examination of the California Constitution
which established a republican form of government, in addition to the actual
governmental practices in which the State of California engaged.
With these two Articles in place it cannot be doubted that every State of
the Union is guaranteed a republican form of government, as opposed to any
other type of government; that such a guarantee is the Supreme Law of the
Land and cannot be contravened by any other law any State may decide to
make; and, it is the duty of the United States government to ensure that
this guarantee is not displaced by some more expedient form of government. And, California adopted and ratified a Constitution consistent with the
United State’s Constitution, wherein it was required to provide for a
republican form of government.
Let’s take a brief look at exactly what constitutes a republican form of
government, at least from our perspective. First, Black’s Law Dictionary,
5th Ed. defines a Republican government as "a government of the people; a
government by representatives chosen by the people." Taking this a step
further our respective state and federal constitutions provide that our
particular form of government would consist of three branches, that is to
say, the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch would function as our law-making faction, the
Executive Branch would execute those laws, and the Judiciary Branch would
ensure justice was done by the two other branches. Add to that the
Constitution by which the respective branches are bound to, and we have
completed our Constitutional Republican form of government.
Working on Jefferson’s theory that we need not to concern ourselves that
good men could become bad men once obtaining the power their respective
office conveyed upon them because they would be bound by the Constitution,
it was decided that to bind the elected officials to the constitution, each
elected official would swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. In
the 1850 version of the California State Constitution the following oath was
inserted at Article XI Section 3 –
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of
California; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of
(name of office), according to the best of my ability."
All members of the legislature and all executive and judicial officers,
except such inferior officers as exempted by law, were required to take and
subscribe to this oath. The California Constitution, as have all
Constitutions, has been amended several times over the years. However, the
oath required to be taken by our elected officials remained in tact to
ensure our elected representatives would be bound by the Constitutions.
As you may, or may not, remember there was period after World War II which
was known as the Cold War. Communism tightened its grip on the world and a
huge concern began to grow that the possibility of Communism could become
entrenched in America. This concern soon escalated into a craze, and
as a result the "House Un-American Activities Committee" was formed and at
its head was Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin. HUAC, a permanent
subcommittee on investigations, held public hearings in which McCarthy
accused army officials, members of the media, and public figures of being
Communists. His charges were never proved, and he was censured by the Senate
in 1954. The reason this history is being related to the reader is to
explain what happened to the oath the elected officials are currently bound
to take and subscribe to in California. In 1952, during the McCarthy Era,
the oath was changed to the following:
Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees,
executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and
employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the
duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a
member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the
State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that
within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or
affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization,
political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of
the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or
other unlawful means except as follows:
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during
such time as I hold the office of (name of office) I will not advocate nor
become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the
State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
Notice that the first part of the oath the officials must not only support
and defend the constitutions, they must also swear allegiance to them. Additionally, they take the oath without mental reservation. [As an aside it
should be noted that the Jesuits believed that anything they did which was
intended to advance their religious ideologies was righteous regardless of
how wrong or immoral it may seem to the rest of the world. With this thought
in mind, they would freely take oaths, swearing to allegiance, or whatever
was the fare of the day, swearing to tell the truth, or swearing to whatever
it was they were swearing to. However, it was their considered opinion that
while taking an oath, if they mentally reserved the right to reject all or
any part of their oath, that the oath was not binding upon them. This idea
of "mental reservation" was not lost on others who fell upon and understood
this doctrine.]
Notice also that there was added a totally new paragraph to the oath. Paraphrased, it explains that the affiant was not a member of any
organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United
States or State of California, within the 5 years preceding the taking of
the oath of office. It further allows that if one did belong to such an
organization, one was to list the name of the organization when the oath was
subscribed to; and further, one had to declare the position occupied in that
organization. Finally, the oath provides that the affiant will not
become a member of any such organization.
Now, one wonders why there was an inclination to change the oath. I think
the answer will be found upon examination of the times. The year is 1952; in
historic time frames we have just concluded World War II and are now engaged
in the Korean Police Action. [Some would have you believe this was a war,
but it wasn’t. To be sure, many good Americans died in this conflict,
nonetheless, it was not a declared war as contemplated by the Constitution
and its framers.] Communism had reared its ugly head on a level heretofore
unknown. Speaking purely from conjecture, and calling upon history, it can
be presumed that with the demise of Hitler and the Third Reich the United
States was coming up short in the "We need an enemy" department which
generally doesn’t sit well with a crisis motivated government, which was
what the United States government was at the time. [Actually, much hasn’t
change since then.] We look at the Korean Conflict; coupled with our Russian
Allies, and find our enemy – COMMUNISM. Propaganda, not unlike that which
was employed by Hitler, was properly administered in doses designed to warn
of us of the "red menace" lurking behind the "Iron Curtain". Consequently,
the fear of god was struck into the heart of every red-blooded American and
the war waged against communism was consecrated as good, just, and a
necessary evil.
Enter, HUAC and McCarthy making wild accusations against prominent
government officials and citizens and suddenly there arises a need to ensure
that no government official has been a communist, or has been involved in
any communistic activity; and, if one has, to be able to document it for
further consideration.
Even though the oath in Article 22, Section 3 of the California Constitution
doesn’t mention communism, but given the fare of the day it doesn’t take a
rocket scientist to figure out what was happening, especially given that
many targets of HUAC and McCarthy hailed from California. Everything being
even, a very strong argument can be made in favor of changing the oath of
office, and in fact it was. Of course, First Amendment objections were taken
to these types of oaths, but to no avail – the red menace must be contained
at all costs.
Additionally, it must also be kept in mind that prior to World War II every
political community on the face of the Earth sat back and watched as
Hitler’s Third Reich moved into place forcibly removing the constitutionally
established Weimar Republic in 1933. What followed was the greatest world
war the planet ever saw along with the Holocaust which was inspired by
massive Nazi propaganda. Hitler replaced the Weimar Republic by force of
arms as opposed to a lawfully accepted method. The United States was not
blind to the methods employed by Hitler, (and still aren’t today). Thus, it
could be concluded that many state governments in the United States changed
their oath of office to ensure that elected officials and certain government
employees, who were placed in office, were not of the mind-set to overthrow
the government in the manner in which Hitler had engaged, i.e., conspiracy,
subterfuge, and propaganda which led to the establishment of a de facto
government which, in turn was forced upon the people.
Nevertheless, for whatever reasons, the Oath of Office was changed in 1952
in California and it remains with us today. It must be unconditionally taken
and subscribed to in the State of California before an official can legally
take office. If the Oath of Office is not taken and subscribed to as
provided for in the State Constitution, no elected official or employee can
take office, or perform the duties of that office. However, if it were to
happen that an elected officer or employee took office, without taking the
appropriate oath of office as prescribed by the State Constitution, just
exactly who, or what, would we have occupying a governmental office? Let’s
find out!
In providing for the Oath of Office the California Legislature enacted the
following laws.
Article 4. Oath of Office
GOV §1360. Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the
duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation
set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California.
GOV §1362. Unless otherwise provided, the oath may be taken before any
officer authorized to administer oaths.
GOV §1363. (a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by
the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required
as follows:
(1) The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited to any
particular county, in the office of the Secretary of State.
(2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and,
except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local,
or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the
office of the county clerk of their respective counties.
(3) Each judge of a superior court, the county clerk, the executive officer
or court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall file a
copy of his or her official oath, signed with his or her own proper
signature, in the office of the Secretary of State as soon as he or she has
taken and subscribed his or her oath.
(4) The oath of all officers for any independent special district, as
defined in Section 56044, in the office of the clerk or secretary of that
district.
(b) Every oath of office filed pursuant to this section with the Secretary
of State shall include the expiration date of the officer’s term of office,
if any. In the case of an oath of office for an appointed officer, if there
is no expiration date set forth in the oath, or the officer leaves office
before the expiration date, the appointing authority shall report in writing
to the Secretary of State the officer’s date of departure from office.
GOV §1364. It is unlawful to remove a person from an office or position of
public trust because such person has not complied with any law, charter, or
regulation prescribing an additional test or qualification for such office
or position of public trust, other than tests and qualifications provided
for under civil service and retirement laws, whenever such person:
(a) Holds the office or position of public trust, and
(b) Upon entering upon the office or position of public trust, has taken, or
after his election or appointment, has offered to take the oath of office
prescribed by this article.
GOV §1365. It is unlawful for any person having the power of removal from
office of any officer to remove or threaten to remove the officer from his
office because the officer, in the appointment of any person to a position
of public trust under himself, refuses to require any additional test or
qualification, other than the oath prescribed by this article and tests and
qualifications provided for under civil service and retirement laws, as a
condition of permitting the appointee to enter upon or remain in the
position of public trust.
GOV §1366. Any officer or person who is removed or threatened with removal
from any office or position of public trust may bring an action to restrain
such unlawful removal or to enforce restoration by process of injunction,
both prohibitory and mandatory, if the real reason for the removal or threat
thereof is noncompliance with provisions requiring such additional test or
qualification or the refusal to require any additional test or qualification
in the appointment to a position of public trust.
GOV §1367. No compensation nor reimbursement for expenses incurred shall be
paid to any officer by any public agency unless he has taken and subscribed
to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter.
GOV §1368. Every person who, while taking and subscribing to the oath or
affirmation required by this chapter, states as true any material matter
which he knows to be false, is guilty of perjury, and is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than fourteen
years.
GOV §1369. Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or
affirmation required by this chapter, who while holding office, advocates or
becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that
advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or
violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison.
As can be seen, particularly from Section 1369, the Oath of Office required
by the State of California is not a laughing matter. The Oath is to be taken
verbatim, and should an official violate that oath he is guilty of a felony. In fact, Section 1360 prohibits an official from taking office and
performing the duties there under until he has taken and subscribed to the
Oath set forth in Section 3, Article XX of the Constitution of California. (Notably, it does not say an official takes the oath after he enters upon
his duties of his office.) Presumably then, an official who hasn’t taken the
prescribed Oath of Office before taking office cannot constitutionally enter
into the duties of his office, and if he does, he does not constitute a part
of the de jure government; but rather, he must be that which is proscribed
by both the California Constitution and Government Code, that is to say --
"a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the
State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
The question which begs itself is, "How can one make such a jump, merely
because the Oath of Office is not Taken or Subscribed to by the official?"
The answer is not as difficult as it would first appear. Please bear with us
as we explain.
In order for a person to lawfully hold office in the California
Constitutional Republic that person must be elected and placed in office
under the mandates of a republican form of government. California’s
republican form of government expressly prohibits anyone who has not taken
the Oath of Office, as prescribed by the State Constitution from taking
office. The Oath, as you have read, expressly provides that the affiant must
swear that he does not belong to an organization or party which would
overthrow the United States Government or the Government of the State of
California. Further, the Oath provides that if he has belonged to such an
organization or party he must provide the name of the organization or party
to which he had allegiance to, and his position therein. Finally, it
provides that during his term of office the affiant will not join such an
organization or party.
With this scenario firmly in mind let’s examine what is occurring in our
Country. When an elected candidate takes an oath in Office, one would think
the task would be simple enough, as it is amply provided for by law. The
elected candidate would simply pull out the Constitution, have the oath
administered by the proper person as provided for by law, and subscribe his
name to the exact oath, which was taken. As previously pointed out, the Oath
of Office can be found at Article XX, Section 3. But, that is not what
happens. No indeed, that’s not what happens at all. The elected candidates
swear an Oath, but not the one provided for by law. The Oath which everyone
appears to be taking is in the following truncated form, To Wit:
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
Now granted, it does track the language of the first half of the Oath of
Office found in the California Constitution, which, all things being even,
is pretty good. But not good enough; where is the rest of it? You know, the
part about not belonging to any organization which would overthrow the
government? Why is that part missing? Since that part is missing, can it be
presumed that the affiant intends to belong to such an organization, or
actually already belongs to such an organization? For what other reason
would the second part of the Oath be omitted? I guess we could hypothesize
all day, but I sure wouldn’t take an Oath I wasn’t going to keep, and I sure
wouldn’t perjure myself upon the taking of an Oath. Hence, if I believed
that I couldn’t live up to the oath, I would either change it, not take it,
or take mental reservation to the Oath. After some checking around, it has
been discovered that the Oath hasn’t been changed, the elected candidates
did take a truncated form of the oath; and, it doesn’t appear they would
have to take mental reservation to the Oath, rather, they just simply
omitted the offending part of it.
What exactly, again, does a person have to do to take office? Well, he has
to "take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of
Article XX of the Constitution of California." Not just part of it, he has
to take and subscribe to the entire oath. And, "no compensation nor
reimbursement for expenses incurred shall be paid to any officer by any
public agency unless he has taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation
required by this chapter." I would ask you, dear reader, just exactly WHO is
occupying the governmental offices in the state of California, and just
exactly who are we paying to do so?
They are not elected officials, because in order to be an elected official,
they are required to take the Oath of Office under Article XX, Section 3 of
the California Constitution. And, if there are no elected officials in
office WHO is running our constitutional republic? The answer seems pretty
obvious, no one is running our constitutional republic because we have no
one in office who is qualified to run it; hence we no longer have a
constitutional republican form of government. You know, the type of
government the United States government is supposed to guarantee every state
of the union under Article VI, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.
So what do we have? Some would argue that we have a de facto government
which means a government accepted for all practical purposes, but one that
is illegal or illegitimate.
Defacto Government Report from Alaska
Common Law Court follow-up in Alaska: UNCOVERING THE MYSTERY OF THE OATH OF
OFFICE
By Ralph Kermit Winterrowd, 2nd.
I filed a Case, No. 3AN-98-11676 CI in a Common-Law Court venue and
jurisdiction in the city of Anchorage, Alaska in December of 1998 for the
right of true ownership of my pickup, which has no tags and is not
registered or titled in the State of Alaska. I'm suing the Anchorage
Policemen individually, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Police Chief and
others for unlawfully removing my private property from private property to
have it impounded.
Since this case started, I sued the Superior Court Judge Reese assigned to
this case in his individual capacity and he requested to be removed from the
case. Superior Court Judge Shortell has been appointed to the case and I'm
waiting for him to Trespass on the case. All of the defendants have
defaulted as of February 23, 1999.
Ongoing research since this case was started has revealed that THERE ARE NO
PUBLIC OFFICERS in Alaska. We have a corporate state of EMPLOYEES. There is
very distinct difference between a Public Officer and an Employee. "A
'public officer' as distinguished from an 'employee' must be vested by law
with a portion of the sovereignty of state [of the people!] and authorized
to exercise functions either of an executive, legislative, or judicial
character." Jaeger Mfg. Co. v. Maryland casualty Co., 300 N.W. 680, 684, 231
Iowa 151.
The Public Officer must have an "Oath of Office" and an "Official Bond."
None of the purported judges in Alaska have either. This is how it was
accomplished in Alaska. Arising under the "Constitution of the State of
Alaska" Article XII, Section 5, there is a very distinct Oath of Office
required. Also, in Article XII, Section 5, "The legislature may prescribe
further oaths or affirmations." In Chapter 162 of the laws of Alaska of
1959, the same oath as in the "Constitution of the State of Alaska" was
enacted with the difference only that employees would take this oath.
We found the document titled an "EMPLOYEE AFFIDAVIT" FOR EACH OF THE JUDGES,
JUSTICES AND MAGISTRATES. On each EMPLOYEE AFFIDAVIT were the words at the
top "Oath of Office" and it said the authority was chapter 162 SLA 1959. The
correct words of the oath followed with their signature. It was not sealed
or notarized, but just has a department signature of approval.
A second "Oath" was also filed and for the superior court judges and
magistrates this document was only titled "Oath," and not a "Oath of
Office." Also in this Oath were additional words. The Constitutional Oath
says "Constitution of the United States," but this Oath says "Constitution
of the United States of America," Also when they got to the discharge my
duties as.............., instead of the 'office name,' such as superior
court judge (corporate name) or judge of the superior court (de jure), they
used "a judicial officer for the State of Alaska" and at the end the word
"ability" was changed to "abilities."
Therefore it now makes logical sense why they have only a corporate surety
instead of the required Official Bond. They are all mere employees only
working under the supervision of higher corporate folks and not public
officers.
We are presently preparing a demand for Articles of Impeachment against all
of the Supreme Court Justices and certain specific judges to go to the
president of the Senate. Also, Writs of Quo Warranto are being prepared to
go to the Attorney General, to test the authority of the usurpers. Also, a
notice to produce the Official Bond in 15 days as found in the private law
code in title 39.
Also discovered is that we have law in Alaska by Legal Notice only - another
story! Stay tuned!
"Ongoing research since this case was started has revealed that THERE ARE NO
PUBLIC OFFICERS in Alaska."
Defacto Government Report from Utah
A Roman general is quoted to have once said, "Stop quoting the law, we
have swords." No doubt if he were alive today, he would be employed by
either the IRS or the DOJ.
If only they understood that, whatever way Joe's trial goes, or our trial
goes, the truth is NOT GOING AWAY. The evidence is way beyond the point
where their violence could silence it. While they're doing their best to
hurt as many people as possible who talk about these issues, it is NOT
slowing the spread of the truth. We know the law. We see your swords.
And we keep telling the truth anyway.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.theft-by-deception.com/
State of Utah
Office of the Governor
Lawrence Rey Topham, Acting Governor
November 4, 2003 A.D.
OFFICIAL NOTICE
OATH OF OFFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
FAILURE TO FILE OATH OF OFFICE OR BOND
WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW
IS FATAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE;
THE OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES VACANT;
LATE FILING IS INEFFECTIVE;
EVERY UNOFFICIAL ACT IS VOID;
AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED.
Persons chosen for public office may be required by law to accept the office
within a specified time and to qualify by filing an oath, giving bond or
doing whatever else the law declares necessary to entitle them to assume the
duties of the office.
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.
Failure to comply with such provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to
office. Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103, 31 SE2d 898, 158 ALR 631.
Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath. Boisvert v. County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617.
Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so
requiring, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is
automatically vacant and may be filled as provided by law. Comins v. County
of Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533.
Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled as provided by law for failure
to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is not unconstitutional
and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated. State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when entering upon their
duties as justices thereof. Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U. 378, 131 P.2d 794.
Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a
compliance with the law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a
public office and any person who fails to file his oath of office within the
time limits required by law creates an ipso facto vacancy and such person's
acts are void and vitiate any subsequent proceedings. Parker v. Overman, 59
U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
UTAH CONSTITUTION
Utah Constitution Article IV, Section 10 , Provides:
"All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the
laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their
respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and
defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this
State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.["]
UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, 1953.
Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Section 76-8-203, Provides:
(1) A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if he exercises or attempts
to exercise any of the functions of a public office when:
(a) He has not taken and filed the required oath of office; or
(b) He has failed to execute and file the required bond; or
(c) He has not been elected or appointed to office; or
(d) He exercises any of the functions of his office after his term has
expired and the successor has been elected or appointed and has qualified,
or his office has been legally removed.
(e) He knowingly withholds or retains from his successor in office or other
person entitled to the official seal or any records, papers, documents, or
other writing appertaining or belonging to his office or mutilates or
destroys or takes away the same.
(2) Unofficial misconduct is a class B misdemeanor.
Title 52 Chapter 01 Official Oaths and Bonds
Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Section 52-1-2 [renumbered but unchanged from
65-0-2]
Whenever state officers, officials or state institutions, or other persons
are required to give official bonds to the state, such bonds, unless
otherwise provided, shall be be approved by the state board of examiners,
and recorded by the secretary of state in a book kept for that purpose. When
so recorded the secretary of state shall deliver the originals to the state
treasurer, excepting the bond of the state treasurer, and the treasurer
shall become the legal custodian thereof, but the bond of the state
treasurer shall remain in the custody of the secretary of state. The oaths
of office of all state officials shall be filed with the secretary of state. (C.L. 17 Sec. 4306.)
Title 52 Chapter 02 Failure to Qualify for Office
52-2-1. Time in which to qualify -- Failure -- Office declared vacant.
Whenever any person duly elected or appointed to any office of the state or
any of its political subdivisions, fails to qualify for such office within
sixty days after the date of beginning of the term of office for which he
was elected or appointed, such office shall thereupon become vacant and
shall be filled as provided by law. Whenever the bond of any officer of the
state or of any of its political subdivisions is canceled, revoked, annulled
or otherwise becomes void or of no effect, without another proper bond being
given so that continuance of bonded protection is afforded, the office of
such officer shall thereupon become vacant and shall be filled as provided
by law. Any elected or appointed official who has failed on the effective
date of this act to qualify for the position to which he was elected or
appointed, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this act, and
the office of such officer shall become vacant at the end of forty days
after the effective date of this act unless legal bond is given before the
expiration of such period, and such office shall be filled as provided by
law.
No Change Since 1953
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
JON M. HUNTSMAN JR. (CFR) HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
UTAH.
The period to qualify for office for the November 2004 elections ended March
4, 2005 for the term beginning January 3, 2005
Despite our efforts to advise Jon Huntsman Jr. of his obligation under the
law, and our invitation to help restore constitutional government, Mr. Huntsman has failed to qualify for the office of Governor of the State of
Utah by filing his oath of office as prescribed by law, and is now acting as
Governor of the State of Utah in violation of the law.
In compliance with Article 6 of the Constitution, the very first act passed
by Congress and signed by President Washington on June 1, 1789, was the
actual oath to support the Constitution that was to be administered to
various government officers.
Ezra Taft Benson, October 3. 1987 A.D. President LDS Church
FAILURE TO FILE OATH OF OFFICE OR BOND WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW IS
FATAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE; THE OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES VACANT;
LATE FILING IS INEFFECTIVE; EVERY UNOFFICIAL ACT IS VOID; AND ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED.
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.
76-8-203. Unofficial misconduct.
(1) A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if he exercises or attempts
to exercise any of the functions of a public office when:
(a) he has not taken and filed the required oath of office;
52-2-1. Time in which to qualify -- Failure -- Office declared vacant.
Whenever any person duly elected or appointed to any office of the state or
any of its political subdivisions, fails to qualify for such office within
sixty days after the date of beginning of the term of office for which he
was elected or appointed, such office shall thereupon become vacant and
shall be filled as provided by law.
Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Section 52-1-2
[Renumbered but unchanged from 65-0-2]
Whenever state officers, officials or state institutions, or other persons
are required to give official bonds to the state, such bonds, unless
otherwise provided, shall be approved by the state board of examiners, and
recorded by the secretary of state in a book kept for that purpose. When so
recorded the secretary of state shall deliver the originals to the state
treasurer, excepting the bond of the state treasurer, and the treasurer
shall become the legal custodian thereof, but the bond of the state
treasurer shall remain in the custody of the secretary of state. The oaths
of office of all state officials shall be filed with the secretary of state. (C.L. 17 Sec. 4306.)
On March 8, 2005, I personally examined the oaths of office on file with the
division of archives. Here is a summary of what I witnessed:
There was NO oath of office available at the division of archives for Jon M. Huntsman Jr.
There were NO oaths of office on file at the division of archives for ANY
members of the Utah House of Representatives.
For 29 seats in the Utah Senate, there were 16 oaths of office on file. Of
those oaths for Senators examined, the signature of Fred D. Howard appears
on the line intended for the signature of the Senator. On the line intended
for his countersignature, the name Fred D. Howard was typewritten. The
Senator’s signatures were placed above the signature of Fred D. Howard, and
in several documents the ink was on top of, and subsequent to, the signature
of Fred D. Howard, whose purpose was to verify the signature of the Senator,
suggesting a possibility the signatures of the Senators were falsely
witnessed.
For the year 2001, the oaths of office for former Governor Michael O. Leavitt, and former Lieutenant Governor Olene S. Walker were examined.
Olene Smith Walker and Michael Okerlund Leavitt took their oath of office on
December 21, 2000, prior to the beginning of the term of office on January
1, 2001. It was subscribed by Richard C. Howe, Chief Justice, Utah Supreme
Court, and on file at the division of archives. At the bottom of each oath
on file, was the following small print:
Note: This oath of office pertains to the new term beginning the first
Monday of January 2001, which is January 1, 2001. Governor Leavitt (or
Lieutenant Governor Walker) intends to take the oath of office again in a
formal inauguration ceremony on Thursday, January 4, 2001.
NO OATHS OF OFFICE WERE FOUND IN THE ARCHIVED RECORDS FOR EITHER MICHAEL O. LEAVITT OR OLENE S. WALKER FOR THE TERM OF OFFICE BEGINNING IN JANUARY of
2001.
Oaths of office for 2003
In examining the oaths for the House of Representatives filed in 2003, the
majority were countersigned by Norman H. Bangerter, using the title “Former
Speaker of the House;” an unofficial position not authorized to administer
the oath of office. There were several exceptions, those being oaths that
were signed by the Senators, but not countersigned by anyone.
I also noticed that the oats of office do not have a filing date with the
division of archives, not marking the date they were received, so it cannot
be determined if the oaths were received within the time limit. They haven’t
done this since 1974.
There were other discrepancies I will not address in this writing.
Evidence in Court
These things were documented by photocopy as evidence in West Valley City
Case No. C 04 06941 and left in the custody of the division of archives
pursuant to Article I Section 12, of the Utah Constitution:
Sec. 12. [Rights of accused persons.] In no instance shall any accused
person, before final judgment, be compelled to advance money or fees to
secure the rights herein guaranteed.
November 12, 2003
State of Utah
Office of the Governor
Lawrence Rey Topham, Acting Governor
November 4, 2003 A.D.
OFFICIAL NOTICE
OATH OF OFFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
FAILURE TO FILE OATH OF OFFICE OR BOND
WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW
IS FATAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE;
THE OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES VACANT;
LATE FILING IS INEFFECTIVE;
EVERY UNOFFICIAL ACT IS VOID;
AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED.
Persons chosen for public office may be required by law to accept the office
within a specified time and to qualify by filing an oath, giving bond or
doing whatever else the law declares necessary to entitle them to assume the
duties of the office.
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.
Failure to comply with such provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to
office. Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103, 31 SE2d 898, 158 ALR 631.
Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath. Boisvert v. County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617.
Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so
requiring, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is
automatically vacant and may be filled as provided by law. Comins v. County
of Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533.
Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled as provided by law for failure
to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is not unconstitutional
and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated. State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when entering upon their
duties as justices thereof. Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U. 378, 131 P.2d 794.
Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a
compliance with the law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a
public office and any person who fails to file his oath of office within the
time limits required by law creates an ipso facto vacancy and such person's
acts are void and vitiate any subsequent proceedings. Parker v. Overman, 59
U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
UTAH CONSTITUTION
Utah Constitution Article IV, Section 10 , Provides:
"All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the
laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their
respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and
defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this
State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.["]
UTAH CODE ANNOTATED, 1953.
Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Section 76-8-203, Provides:
(1) A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if he exercises or attempts
to exercise any of the functions of a public office when:
(a) He has not taken and filed the required oath of office; or
(b) He has failed to execute and file the required bond; or
(c) He has not been elected or appointed to office; or
(d) He exercises any of the functions of his office after his term has
expired and the successor has been elected or appointed and has qualified,
or his office has been legally removed.
(e) He knowingly withholds or retains from his successor in office or other
person entitled to the official seal or any records, papers, documents, or
other writing appertaining or belonging to his office or mutilates or
destroys or takes away the same.
(2) Unofficial misconduct is a class B misdemeanor.
Title 52 Chapter 01 Official Oaths and Bonds
Utah Code Annotated, 1953, Section 52-1-2 [renumbered but unchanged from
65-0-2]
Whenever state officers, officials or state institutions, or other persons
are required to give official bonds to the state, such bonds, unless
otherwise provided, shall be be approved by the state board of examiners,
and recorded by the secretary of state in a book kept for that purpose. When
so recorded the secretary of state shall deliver the originals to the state
treasurer, excepting the bond of the state treasurer, and the treasurer
shall become the legal custodian thereof, but the bond of the state
treasurer shall remain in the custody of the secretary of state. The oaths
of office of all state officials shall be filed with the secretary of state. (C.L. 17 Sec. 4306.)
Title 52 Chapter 02 Failure to Qualify for Office
52-2-1. Time in which to qualify -- Failure -- Office declared vacant.
Whenever any person duly elected or appointed to any office of the state or
any of its political subdivisions, fails to qualify for such office within
sixty days after the date of beginning of the term of office for which he
was elected or appointed, such office shall thereupon become vacant and
shall be filled as provided by law. Whenever the bond of any officer of the
state or of any of its political subdivisions is canceled, revoked, annulled
or otherwise becomes void or of no effect, without another proper bond being
given so that continuance of bonded protection is afforded, the office of
such officer shall thereupon become vacant and shall be filled as provided
by law. Any elected or appointed official who has failed on the
effective date of this act to qualify for the position to which he was
elected or appointed, shall be deemed to come within the provisions of this
act, and the office of such officer shall become vacant at the end of forty
days after the effective date of this act unless legal bond is given before
the expiration of such period, and such office shall be filled as provided
by law.
No Change Since 1953
XXXXXX
ONLY FIVE PEOPLE HAVE FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE IN THE STATE OF UTAH SINCE 1984.
NO UTAH SENATOR-ELECT HAS FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE IN UTAH SINCE 1974 A.D.
NO UTAH LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ENACTED OR MADE SINCE
1974 A.D., WHEN THE UTAH SENATORS-ELECT ALL FAILED TO FILE THE REQUIRED OATH
OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND HAVE CONTINUED SUCH FAILURE UNTO
THIS VERY DAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D.
OLENE SMITH WALKER HAS NEVER FILED AN OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE EITHER AS A LEGISLATOR OR AS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ALL OF HER ACTS
HAVE BEEN, AND ARE, UNOFFICIAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
NEITHER THE REPUBLICAN NOR THE DEMOCRAT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE REGISTERED
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF UTAH SINCE 1981, OR EVEN BEFORE THEN, THEY
ARE UNOFFICIAL PARTIES IN UTAH, AS ARE ALL OTHER PARTIES AT THE PRESENT
TIME.
THEREFORE, GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF UTAH DID NOT CERTIFY ANY
REPUBLICAN ELECTORS TO CONGRESS FOR THE 2000 A.D., GENERAL ELECTION. WITHOUT
ANY UTAH ELECTORS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TO BECOME PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE CORRUPTION IN UTAH HAS SPREAD OVER THE
WHOLE NATION BRINGING THE CONSTITUTION TO THE BRINK OF RUIN AND TO THE VERY
VERGE OF DESTRUCTION.
NORMAN H. BANGERTER, GORDON R. HALL, MICHAEL D. ZIMMERMAN, I. DANIEL
STEWART, W. VAL OVESON, TOM L. ALLEN, EDWARD T. ALTER, R. PAUL VAN DAM,
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, OLENE S. WALKER, AUSTON G. JOHNSON, MARK A. SHURTLEFF
AND ALL OF UTAH'S UNOFFICIAL LEGISLATORS FROM 1974 THROUGH NOVEMBER 4, 2003
A.D., AND DAVID E. YOCOM, E. NEAL GUNNARSON, AARON D. KENNARD AND ALL THEIR
UNOFFICIAL DEPUTIES, AND ALL OF THE UNOFFICIAL JUDGES ACTING UNDER
UNOFFICIAL LAWS AND UNOFFICIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE ALL BUT
COMPLETELY DESTROYED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND
THEY NOW INTEND TO UPHOLD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 A.D., WITH THE
UNOFFICIAL INAUGURATION OF OLENE SMITH WALKER AND HER UNOFFICIAL APPOINTEES.
IT IS MY SWORN DUTY TO WARN THE PEOPLE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES OF THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT BY MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, OLENE SMITH WALKER AND THEIR
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE WORKED TO DESTROY OUR DIVINE
CONSTITUTION AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, WHICH
THEY HAVE VIOLATED FOR THE LAST TWENTY NINE (29) YEARS BY FAILING TO FILE
OATHS OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND FOR THE LAST FORTY (40)
YEARS, BY FINANCING THEIR UNOFFICIAL MISCONDUCT WITH COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES
AND CURRENT COIN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE FULL
SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
SAINTS, BOTH IN THEIR PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, BRINGING THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO BONDAGE AS THE
GREATEST DEBTORS IN THE WORLD, 6.861 TRILLION FALSE DOLLARS, WITH WHICH THEY
FINANCE THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF EXTORTION, RACKETEERING AND
REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE STATE OF UTAH.
IT IS TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF CHURCH AND STATE AND MEDIA.
"WHEREFORE, THUS SAITH THE LORD GOD, WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY, EXCEPT YE REPENT,
YE SHALL BE SMITTEN EVEN UNTO DESTRUCTION. RETURN UNTO ME AND I WILL RETURN
UNTO YOU, SAITH THE LORD GOD, WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY. BUT IF YE WILL NOT
REPENT, YE SHALL BE SMITTEN EVEN UNTO DESTRUCTION." AMEN. [GIVEN: AUGUST 17,
2003 A.D.]
IF THOSE EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE STATE OF UTAH HAVE
NOT FILED OATHS OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OR THE COUNTY, CITY,
TOWN OR OTHER OFFICERS, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
IN THE STATE OF UTAH.
IF THE LEADERS AND PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF UTAH ARE NOT USING GOLD AND SILVER
COIN AS LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ONLY LAWFUL TENDER IN
PAYMENT OF DEBTS, THEY ARE NOT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, BUT ARE, IN FACT, IN REBELLION AND THEY ARE UPHOLDING THE CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF ALL OF THE STATES AND
TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS THEREOF, AND HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE, OWN
PROPERTY, BE ON AN OFFICIAL BALLOT AND HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. ROSS C. ANDERSON AND FRANK R. PIGNANELLI
ARE TWO SUCH INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE REBELLED, FAILED TO QUALIFY TO VOTE, BE ON
THE OFFICIAL BALLOT AND HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE IN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE STATE
OF UTAH. FRANK R. PIGNANELLI NEVER DID FILE AN OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AS A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UTAH LEGISLATURE, ALL OF HIS
ACTIONS THERE WERE UNOFFICIAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS A MATTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
ALL PUBLIC ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF UTAH SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2003
A.D., INCLUDING THE ELECTION FOR MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, ARE, UNOFFICIAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID, WHERE THE CANDIDATES AND THE UNOFFICIAL COUNTY
CLERKS AND CITY AND TOWN RECORDERS USE COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES AND CURRENT
COINS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTEMPT TO QUALIFY FOR THE UNOFFICIAL BALLOTS
AND ELECTION TO OFFICE OR TO PREPARE UNOFFICIAL BALLOTS FOR THE GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. THE NEWS PAPERS, RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS
SUPPORT THE UNOFFICIAL ELECTIONS AND ARE ALSO FINANCED WITH FALSE SECURITIES
AND CURRENT COIN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEY ARE ALL IN REBELLION AGAINST
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
ONLY VOTES ON THE TRUE "OFFICIAL BALLOTS" OR "WRITE-IN VOTES" OF NON
REBELLING CITIZENS FOR NON REBELLING CANDIDATES ARE VALID. IN SALT LAKE
CITY'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, LAWRENCE REY TOPHAM IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE
WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE TRUE OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT, THEREFORE, A SINGLE
VOTE FOR HIM IS SUFFICIENT FOR VICTORY.
THIS I TESTIFY, AS A WITNESS, AND, WITH THIS ULTIMATE WARNING, WHICH I GIVE
IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF UTAH, THE COUNTY
OF SALT LAKE, AND THE CITY OF SALT LAKE, AND IN THE MOST HOLY AND SACRED
NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, OUR CREATOR, OUR LORD, OUR REDEEMER, OUR BELOVED
SAVIOR, OUR ELDER BROTHER AND OUR FRIEND. AMEN.
The above information was prepared by Lawrence Rey Topham, Secretary of
State and acting Governor of the State of Utah, on November 3rd and 4th,
2003 A.D., AS A FORMAL PUBLIC WARNING IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA against all enemies, both foreign and domestic,
WITH GOD, OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, AND JESUS CHRIST, AND THE HOLY GHOST AS MY
WITNESSES.
Signed and Dated this 4rd day of November 2003 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|___________________________________
Lawrence Rey Topham
Secretary of State and
Acting Governor of the
State of Utah
POST SCRIPT: NOVEMBER 5, 2003 A.D., 9:25 A.M., LAWRENCE REY TOPHAM WAS
RE-ELECTED MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D., WITH 100 PERCENT
OF THE OFFICIAL VOTE ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D.
· ONLY FIVE PEOPLE HAVE FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE IN THE STATE OF UTAH SINCE 1984.
· NO UTAH SENATOR-ELECT HAS FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE IN UTAH SINCE 1974 A.D.
· NO UTAH LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ENACTED OR MADE SINCE
1974 A.D., WHEN THE UTAH SENATORS-ELECT ALL FAILED TO FILE THE REQUIRED OATH
OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND HAVE CONTINUED SUCH FAILURE UNTO
THIS VERY DAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D.
· OLENE SMITH WALKER HAS NEVER FILED AN OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE EITHER AS A LEGISLATOR OR AS AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ALL OF HER
ACTS HAVE BEEN, AND ARE, UNOFFICIAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.
· NEITHER THE REPUBLICAN NOR THE DEMOCRAT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE REGISTERED
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF UTAH SINCE 1981, OR EVEN BEFORE THEN, THEY
ARE UNOFFICIAL PARTIES IN UTAH, AS ARE ALL OTHER PARTIES AT THE PRESENT
TIME.
THEREFORE, GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF UTAH DID NOT CERTIFY ANY
REPUBLICAN ELECTORS TO CONGRESS FOR THE 2000 A.D., GENERAL ELECTION. WITHOUT
ANY UTAH ELECTORS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TO BECOME PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE CORRUPTION IN UTAH HAS SPREAD
OVER THE WHOLE NATION BRINGING THE CONSTITUTION TO THE BRINK OF RUIN AND TO
THE VERY VERGE OF DESTRUCTION.
NORMAN H. BANGERTER, GORDON R. HALL, MICHAEL D. ZIMMERMAN, I. DANIEL
STEWART, W. VAL OVESON, TOM L. ALLEN, EDWARD T. ALTER, R. PAUL VAN DAM,
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, OLENE S. WALKER, AUSTON G. JOHNSON, MARK A. SHURTLEFF
AND ALL OF UTAH'S UNOFFICIAL LEGISLATORS FROM 1974 THROUGH NOVEMBER 4, 2003
A.D., AND DAVID E. YOCOM, E. NEAL GUNNARSON, AARON D.
KENNARD AND ALL THEIR UNOFFICIAL DEPUTIES, AND ALL OF THE UNOFFICIAL JUDGES
ACTING UNDER UNOFFICIAL LAWS AND UNOFFICIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE
ALL BUT COMPLETELY DESTROYED CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF UTAH,
AND THEY NOW INTEND TO UPHOLD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 A.D.,
WITH THE UNOFFICIAL INNAUGURATION OF OLENE SMITH WALKER AND HER UNOFFICIAL
APPOINTEES.
IT IS MY SWORN DUTY TO WARN THE PEOPLE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES OF THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT BY MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, OLENE SMITH WALKER AND THEIR
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE WORKED TO DESTROY OUR DIVINE
CONSTITUTION AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, WHICH
THEY HAVE VIOLATED FOR THE LAST TWENTY NINE (29) YEARS BY FAILING TO FILE
OATHS OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND FOR THE LAST FORTY (40)
YEARS, BY FINANCING THEIR UNOFFICIAL MISCONDUCT WITH COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES
AND CURRENT COIN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE FULL
SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
SAINTS, BOTH IN THEIR PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, BRINGING THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INTO BONDAGE AS THE
GREATEST DEBTORS IN THE WORLD, 6.861 TRILLION FALSE DOLLARS, WITH WHICH THEY
FINANCE THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF EXTORTION, RACKETEERING AND
REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE STATE OF UTAH.
IT IS TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF … STATE AND MEDIA.
IF THOSE EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE STATE OF UTAH HAVE
NOT FILED OATHS OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OR THE COUNTY, CITY,
TOWN OR OTHER OFFICERS, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
IN THE STATE OF UTAH.
The News Media and Utah's November 5, 2002 AD, General Election
Salt Lake City, Utah
The media are supporting unofficial government and election fraud.
The print, radio, television and internet media with Olene S. Walker
and 29 other persons, acting unofficially, as lieutenant governor and county
clerks in the State of Utah, are publishing and broadcasting false election
information concerning the unofficial "official ballot", the candidates,
constitutional amendments, initiative, and propositions for Utah's November
5, 2002 AD, General Election.
Because of 28 years, 1975 through 2002 AD, of unofficial misconduct,
extortionate extensions and collections of credit, falsification of public
accounts and records, election fraud, conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud,
counterfeiting and other racketeering activities, no candidate,
constitutional amendment, initiative or proposition qualified to be on the
official 2002 AD general election ballot in any county in the State of Utah.
UCA 52-1-2, 52-2-1, 76-8-203 and 76-8-414 (1974)….
Olene S. Walker is not the secretary of state of the State of Utah. The
secretary of state is the elections officer of the State of Utah. All state
officers are required by law to file their oath of office with the secretary
of state. That is the law in the State of Utah. Utah Code Annotated (UCA)
1953, as amended through 1974 AD, Title 52, chapter 1, section 2. Olene S.
Walker did not file an oath of office with the secretary of state.
If a person duly elected or duly appointed does not take, subscribe and file
an oath of office with the secretary of state within the time prescribed by
law that person does not become a state official, legislative, executive or
judicial. The crime is unofficial misconduct. UCA 76-8-203 (1974). And the
office becomes vacant. UCA 52-2-1 (1943) The law makes the office vacant. Unofficial acts are void. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137, [U.S Supreme
Court, 1856 AD. - Oath of Office - Time of Filing -Failure to file in time
prescribed - Ipso Facto Vacancy - Penalty.]
No person elected to the Utah Senate has complied with the oath of office
laws since 1974, except one, a write-in candidate, in 1997 AD. No State of
Utah election laws have changed since 1974 AD. No official new Utah
laws have been made and no official amendments to the Utah Constitution have
been proposed since 1974 AD.
The five constitutional executive offices are: governor, secretary of state,
auditor, treasurer and attorney general. Utah Constitution (1973).
Neither the auditor nor the treasurer can succeed himself in office for a
second consecutive term.
There is no official office of lieutenant governor in the State of Utah.
It is a fraud.
The "UTAH VOTER INFORMATION PAMPHLET" "General Election November 5, 2002"
certified by Olene S. Walker as "complete and correct according to law" and
"Dated: August 30, 2002", is not an official publication of the State of
Utah, instead, it is an unofficial, false and fraudulent publication, and it
is not "complete and correct according to law". It is a fraudulent attempt
to corruptly influence the November 5, 2002 AD, official general election in
the State of Utah, in support of Michael O. Leavitt's organized crime
operations.
There are no political parties registered with the secretary of state of the
State of Utah. Therefore, no party candidates qualified to be on the
official ballot for either the primary election fixed by law for September
10, 2002 AD, or the general election fixed by law to be on November 5, 2002
AD.
No other matters qualified to be on the general election ballot, because
none of them were filed with the secretary of state of the State of Utah or
with an official county clerk in any county in the State of Utah. The
printed ballots are provided by criminal means by organized crime for
organized crime supporters only.
The November 5, 2002 AD, General Election Ballot is unofficial. It is a
false document. Only people who violated the law were allowed to get their
names put on the ballot. Millie Petersen offered two false filing fees, one
before the unofficial primary election and one after she lost, so she could
file as a write-in candidate. Millie Petersen was one of the
unofficial legislators who failed to file an oath of office with the
secretary of state for any term of office in the legislature, and is now the
victim of her own unofficial misconduct.
Sherrie Swensen required Millie Petersen to declare her candidacy as a
write-in candidate and give a false filing fee to become a write-in
candidate, when the official law of the State of Utah requires neither a
declaration of candidacy or a filing fee from a write-in candidate.
The declaration of candidacy and filing fee provisions for write-in
candidates are unofficial, unconstitutional and void, and are not "according
to law." Utah Const., Article 4, Section 10.
Sherrie Swensen will not count write-in votes unless you do what the
official law does not require you to do. This is election fraud. The
write-in vote of a voter or write-in votes received by a candidate will not
be counted by the unofficial "officers" in the State of Utah and the 29
counties thereof, but write-in votes do officially count under the
constitutional law and the candidate who gets the most write-in votes will
win the election for each office. This I declare with God as my
witness.
Here is a fitting example. David E. Yocom is seeking office as a District
Attorney (an unofficial office). He "filed" a declaration of candidacy in
March, instead of the time prescribed by law between April 15, 2002 AD, and
May 10, 2002 AD. He "filed" a false filing fee with Sherrie Swensen.
He did not use gold and silver coin.
"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts;" U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 10.
Sherrie Swensen approved his name to be on the general election ballot after
the unofficial primary election held June 25, 2002 AD, instead of the time
prescribed by law as the second Tuesday in September, September 10, 2002 AD.
In April of 1989 I, Lawrence Rey Topham, filed an affidavit with the Salt
Lake County attorney's office. Walter R. Ellett accepted the affidavit. A
few citizens of Salt Lake County met with Norman D. Hayward, David E. Yocom
and Walter R. Ellett. David E. Yocom said, "These people are not criminals."
These people, 112 of them, 75 representatives, 29 senators, all five
executive officers and 3 justices of the Utah Supreme Court all failed to
file the oath of office required by the United States Constiution, Article
VI; the first law enacted by congress, which took effect June 1, 1789 AD, 1
Stat. 23; Utah Const., Article 4, Section 10; UCA 52-1-2 (1974) "All
state officials shall file their oath of office with the secretary of
state."; UCA 52-2-1 (1943) Failure to qualify within 60 days - office
becomes vacant; and UCA 76-8-203, Unofficial Misconduct- failure to file
oath of office - class B misdemeanor.
Knowing full well that they had not subscribed and filed the required oaths
of office within sixty days of the beginning of their terms of office which
was Jan 5, 1987 AD for Gordon R. Hall and January 2, 1989 AD for the 7
others named below, Gordon R. Hall, falsified his own oath of office
certificate and back dated it two full years, to January 2, 1987 AD, and had
Geoffrey Butler certify his signature, when the term of office did not begin
until January 5, 1987 AD, and then he proceeded to falsify the oaths of
office for Michael D. Zimmerman, and I Daniel Stewart, and then those of
Norman H. Bangerter, W. Val Oveson, Tom L. Allen, Edward T. Alter, and R. Paul Van Dam. This falsification is a third degree felony without statute of
limitation. In other words it may be prosecuted at any time. UCA 76-8-414. Realizing this, the unofficial legislature subsequently tried to change the
statute of limitation. Keep in mind that the 75 representatives and 29
senators did not file their oaths of office for the terms of office
beginning in 1987 or 1989 AD, so for four full years there were no
representatives or senators to vote for any legislation, and there had been
no senators since 1976. So these people determined the oath of office is not
required by law, and continued to act in violation of the law. The Utah
State Bar was dissolved. All drivers license certificates were and are
obtained by unconstitutional and criminal means from false officers and are
false and fraudulent certificates. All insurance contracts are false and
fraudulent. All marriage licenses are acquired by unconstitutional and
criminal means from unofficial clerks. Who then is legally and lawfully
married under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
Constitution and laws of the State of Utah? Who can pay a debt or an honest
tithe with false notes and false coins and false credit? Who can enter into
the temples of the Lord without false notes and false coins? Who shall
ascend to the hill of the Lord, but he who hath clean hands and a pure
heart, who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity nor sworn deceitfully?
Two years later, in January of 1991, Aaron D. Kennard was to be sworn in as
sheriff in Salt Lake County by taking and filing the required oath of
office. Sherrie Swensen certified that Aaron D. Kennard subscribed his oath
of office in her presence. But there is no signature on Aaron D. Kennard's
oath of office certificate on file with Sherrie Swensen for the four year
term of office beginning the first Monday of January 1991 AD. Another
false certification.
Now it is 11 years later and Sherrie Swensen, David E. Yocom, and Aaron D. Kennard are all seeking office under unofficial legislation enacted by
unofficial legislators, whom David E. Yocom declared were not "criminals."
David E. Yocom is personally responsible for allowing unofficial misconduct,
a criminal offense, to continue for the last 13 years in the State of Utah,
so that we now have no public officials except for the Salt Lake County
Treasurer, and Lawrence Rey Topham, who has qualified according to law for
the office of Mayor of Salt Lake City with his oath of office on file with
the Salt Lake City Recorder. Lawrence Rey Topham is also the elected Salt
Lake County Clerk and exofficio clerk of the district court. His oath of
office is filed with the Salt Lake County Treasurer, as required by law.
Lawrence Rey Topham was also elected secretary of state on November 7, 2000
AD, succeeding himself in that office for a second term, and filed his oath
of office with the secretary of state of the State of Utah within the time
prescribed by law.
January 12, 1998 AD, the Deseret News published an article about a bill to
be sponsored by an unofficial legislator to change the oath of office law. She said, "The Statewide Association of Prosecutors brought me this issue.
I agreed to run this bill." Instead of enforcing the oath of office laws,
the unofficial Statewide Association of Prosecutors asked the unofficial
legislature to change the oath of office laws, but they ran into a
constitutional problem.
The Utah Constitution requires that "All officers made elective or
appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in pursuance thereof,
before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the
duties of my office with fidelity.[']"
Because of the unofficial misconduct since 1974, there are no official
boundaries for three Congressional Districts in the State of Utah. And
all redistricting (reapportionment) for Utah's legislative districts done
after 1974 is unofficial and void.
Scott M. Matheson, Norman H. Bangerter, Michael O. Leavitt, W. Val Oveson,
Olene S. Walker, Edward T. Alter, Gordon R. Hall, Michael D. Zimmerman,
Richard C. Howe, Christine M. Durham, David E. Yocom, Walter R. Ellett,
Aaron D. Kennard, Sherrie Swensen and the media are primarily responsible
for this criminal conduct in the State of Utah. James V.Hansen, James
Matheson, Chris Cannon, Orrin G. Hatch and Robert G. Bennett have not been
duly elected as representatives and senators to the United States Congress. Olene S.
Walker has also unofficially and falsely certified that they were.
According to the Deseret News, the most influential men in Utah are (1)
Gordon B. Hinckley, (2) Michael O. Leavitt and (3) Jon M. Huntsman, all of
whom use vast amounts of false notes, false coins and false bank credit for
religious, unofficial government, and business operations, and they support
each other. If the most powerful leaders won't obey, support and defend the
Constitution, what hope is there for their followers? Are their followers
not all being led astray? Are their followers not in jeopardy every hour?
They have all known about the unofficial misconduct, but instead of doing
something to resolve the matter, they have knowingly, intentionally and
willfully continued in their criminal conduct, and have continued dealing in
false securities of the United States since 1982 AD when the United States
grand jury in Salt Lake City twice indicted the Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco for issuing falsely made securities of the United States that
could not be redeemed at any federal reserve bank or at the Department of
the Treasury in Washington, District of Columbia, for lawful money of the
United States, which is defined in the Constitution as gold and silver coin.
The states can use only gold and silver coin as money.
Brent D. Ward, a high councilman, bishop, and now a stake president, as U.S. Attorney, concealed the only copy of the first indictment and conspired with
David K. Winder to dismiss the second indictment before it was made public. The foreman of the grand jury had to file a civil suit in order to get the
second indictment made public. Remember the votes on these two true
bills of indictment were 18 to 0 on the first and 16 to 4 on the second,
when only 12 votes are needed.
At the time of the indictments, the purported national debt was under one
trillion measured in the false dollar notes or false dollar coins, or false
bookkeeping entries, but now, twenty years later, the national debt is
reported to be in excess of six trillion. Of course that reporting is
based on false accounting practices where Alan Greenspan and Paul O'Niell
account for liabilities as assets.
The last official boundaries for congressional districts put Salt Lake,
Tooele, Juab, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties in District 2,
and all other counties in district one. The boundaries have not officially
changed since 1974. As time goes on things get worse, not better. Organized
crime has, very subtly, taken over the public affairs in Utah and in the
United States and the people have acquiesced to, and participated in, the
criminal conduct with their leaders, civic, religious and business. …
The news media has taken the side of organized crime as have those who
control the media and those who advertise in the media with false notes,
false coins and fictitious bank credit. The unofficial candidates also
use the false securities and false coin to finance their campaigns so they
can get into unofficial "public office" by criminal means and exercise the
powers of organized crime and share the spoils with the people in order to
keep them satisfied.
Michael O. Leavitt and Olene S. Walker were not presidential electors
certified by the secretary of state of the State of Utah to the Congress,
and therefore George W. Bush did not receive enough electoral votes to
become president of the United States in the 2000 AD, general election. Olene S. Walker made a false certification and cast an unlawful and false
vote for George W. Bush. They persist in violating the
constitutional law in this land, and that, with the general support of the
people of Utah.
The media officers have become the tools for perpetuating organized crime
among the people, corrupting themselves, their employees, the businesses who
advertise with them, their subscribers, listeners and viewers who receive
the false advertisements and news. The religious leaders advertise by
criminal means through the media. How truly wicked have we become as a
people? Teaching righteousness and kindliness, but practicing fraud,
deception and wickedness to finance our enterprises in religion, false
government, businesses, tax exempt foundations and charities.
The love of money is the root of all this evil, for power and gain.
Yes, the media are at the heart of the problem. They have become
corrupted so they no longer defend freedom and truth, but advance fraud and
deception and corruption in society in general, and in Salt Lake City, Salt
Lake County, and the State of Utah in particular.
Lets face the truth. The media work for, are financed by, and promote
organized crime in every segment of our society. The churches are all
likewise supported and operated by criminal means, as are other businesses
and the unofficial, false, and fraudulent, city, county, state and federal
governments, and other false governments all over the world who depend on
the corrupting influence and power of the International Monetary Fund--a
world wide counterfeiting organization that is bringing every nation,
kindred, tongue and people into bondage with false notes, false coins and
fictitious bank credit and special drawing rights, acting in concert and
conspiracy with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the
12 Federal Reserve Banks and their member banks who have no lawful money--no
gold and silver coin on deposit to redeem their false and fraudulent notes
and other securities. This really is total fraud. This is racketeering at
its peak. This is organized crime on
CLOSING REMARKS AND THE GRAY CHAMPION TALE BY HAWTHORNE
This story having been told, without a beginning, must therefore have earned
no end and so it has not and there is none. Ergo, now we must ask ourselves,
a question. "If there was not a beginning, and there can be no end to this
story which has been unfurled, what must we do to start anew? Perhaps we
must revive the Gray Champion?" Think about it. Think about it real hard.
The Gray Champion
By, Nathaniel Hawthorne
THERE WAS ONCE a time, when New-England groaned under the actual pressure of
heavier wrongs, than those threatened ones which brought on the Revolution. James II, the bigoted successor of Charles the Voluptuous, had annulled
title charters of all the colonies, and sent a harsh and unprincipled
soldier to take away our liberties and endanger our religion. The
administration of Sir Edmund Andros lacked scarcely a single characteristic
of tyranny: a governor and Council, holding office from the King, and wholly
independent of the country; laws made and taxes levied without concurrence
of the people, immediate or by their representatives; the rights of private
citizens violated, and the titles of all landed property declared void; the
voice of complaint stifled by restrictions on the press; and, finally,
disaffection overawed by the first band of mercenary troops that ever
marched on our free soil. For two years, our ancestors were kept in sullen
submission, by that filial love which had invariably secured their
allegiance to the mother country, whether its head chanced to be a
Parliament, Protector, or popish Monarch. Till these evil times, however,
such allegiance had been merely nominal, and the colonists had ruled
themselves, enjoying far more freedom, than is even yet the privilege of the
native subjects of Great Britain.
At length, a rumor reached our shores, that the Prince of Orange had
ventured on an enterprise, the success of which would be the triumph of
civil and religious rights and the salvation of New-England. It was but a
doubtful whisper; it might be false, or the attempt might fail; and, in
either case, the man, that stirred against King James, would lose his head. Still the intelligence produced a marked effect. The people smiled
mysteriously in the streets, and threw bold glances at their oppressors;
while, far and wide, there was a subdued and silent agitation, as if the
slightest signal would rouse the whole land from its sluggish despondency. Aware of their danger, the rulers resolved to avert it by an imposing
display of strength, and perhaps to confirm their despotism by yet harsher
measures. One afternoon in April, 1689, Sir Edmund Andros and his favorite
councilors, being warm with wine, assembled the red-coats of the Governor’s
Guard, and made their appearance in the streets of Boston. The sun was near
setting when the march commenced.
The roll of the drum, at that unquiet crisis, seemed to go through the
streets, less as the martial music of the soldiers, than as a muster-call to
the inhabitants themselves. A multitude, by various avenues, assembled in
King-street, which was destined to be the scene, nearly a century
afterwards, of another encounter between the troops of Britain, and a people
struggling against her tyranny. Though more than sixty years had elapsed,
since the Pilgrims came, this crowd of their descendants still showed the
strong and sombre features of their character, perhaps more strikingly in
such a stern emergency than on happier occasions. There was the sober garb,
the general severity of mien, the gloomy but undismayed expression, the
scriptural forms of speech, and the confidence in Heaven’s blessing on a
righteous cause, which would have marked a band of the original Puritans,
when threatened by some peril of the wilderness. Indeed, it was not yet time
for the old spirit to be extinct; since there were men in the street, that
day, who had worshipped there beneath the trees, before a house was reared
to the God, for whom they had become exiles. Old soldiers of the Parliament
were here too, smiling grimly at the thought, that their aged arms might
strike another blow against the house of Stuart. Here also, were the
veterans of King Philip’s war, who had burnt villages and slaughtered young
and old, with pious fierceness, while the godly souls throughout the land
were helping them with prayer. Several ministers were scattered among the
crowd, which, unlike all other mobs, regarded them with such reverence, as
if there were sanctity in their very garments. These holy men exerted their
influence to quiet the people, but not to disperse them. Meantime, the
purpose of the Governor, in disturbing the peace of the town, at a period
when the slightest commotion might throw the country into a ferment, was
almost the universal subject of inquiry, and variously explained.
"Satan will strike his master-stroke presently," cried some, "because he
knoweth that his time is short. All our godly pastors are to be dragged to
prison! We shall see them at a Smithfield fire in King-street!"
Hereupon, the people of each parish gathered closer round their minister,
who looked calmly upwards and assumed a more apostolic dignity, as well
befitted a candidate for the highest honor of his profession, the crown of
martyrdom. It was actually fancied, at that period, that New-England might
have a John Rogers of her own, to take the place of that worthy in the
Primer.
"The Pope of Rome has given orders for a new St. Bartholomew!" cried others. "We are to be massacred, man and male child!"
Neither was this rumor wholly discredited, although the wiser class believed
the Governor’s object somewhat less atrocious. His predecessor under the old
charter, Bradstreet, a venerable companion of the first settlers, was known
to be in town. There were grounds for conjecturing, that Sir Edmund Andros
intended, at once, to strike terror, by a parade of military force, and to
confound the opposite faction, by possessing himself of their chief.
"Stand firm for the old charter Governor!" shouted the crowd, seizing upon
the idea. "The good old Governor Bradstreet!"
While this cry was at the loudest, the people were surprised by the well
known figure of Governor Bradstreet himself, a patriarch of nearly ninety,
who appeared on the elevated steps of a door, and, with characteristic
mildness, besought them to submit to the constituted authorities.
"My children," concluded this venerable person, "do nothing rashly. Cry not
aloud, but pray for the welfare of New-England, and expect patiently what
the Lord will do in this matter!"
The event was soon to be decided. All this time, the roll of the drum had
been approaching through Cornhill, louder and deeper, till, with
reverberations from house to house, and the regular tramp of martial
footsteps, it burst into the street. A double rank of soldiers made their
appearance, occupying the whole breadth of the passage, with shouldered
matchlocks, and matches burning, so as to present a row of fires in the
dusk. Their steady march was like the progress of a machine, that would roll
irresistibly over every thing in its way. Next, moving slowly, with a
confused clatter of hoofs on the pavement, rode a party of mounted
gentlemen, the central figure being Sir Edmund Andros, elderly, but erect
and soldier-like. Those around him were his favorite councilors, and the
bitterest foes of New-England. At his right hand rode Edward Randolph, our
arch enemy, that "blasted wretch," as Cotton Mather calls him, who achieved
the downfall of our ancient government, and was followed with a sensible
curse, through life and to his grave. On the other side was Bullivant,
scattering jests and mockery as he rode along. Dudley came behind, with a
downcast look, dreading, as well he might, to meet the indignant gaze of the
people, who beheld him, their only countryman by birth, among the oppressors
of his native land. The captain of a frigate in the harbor, and two or three
civil officers under the Crown, were also there. But the figure which most
attracted the public eye, and stirred up the deepest feeling, was the
Episcopal clergyman of King’s Chapel, riding haughtily among the magistrates
in his priestly vestments, the fitting representative of prelacy and
persecution, the union of church and state, and all those abominations which
had driven the Puritans to the wilderness. Another guard of soldiers, in
double rank, brought up the rear.
The whole scene was a picture of the condition of New-England, and its
moral, the deformity of any government that does not grow out of the nature
of things and the character of the people. On one side the religious
multitude, with their sad visages and dark attire, and on the other, the
group of despotic rulers, with the high churchman in the midst, and here and
there a crucifix at their bosoms, all magnificently clad, flushed with wine,
proud of unjust authority, and scoffing at the universal groan. And the
mercenary soldiers, waiting but the word to deluge the street with blood,
shewed the only means by which obedience could be secured.
"Oh! Lord of Hosts," cried a voice among the crowd, "provide a Champion for
thy people!"
This ejaculation was loudly uttered, and served as a herald’s cry, to
introduce a remarkable personage. The crowd had rolled back, and were now
huddled together nearly at the extremity of the street, while the soldiers
had advanced no more than a third of its length. The intervening space was
empty—a paved solitude, between lofty edifices, which threw almost a
twilight shadow over it. Suddenly, there was seen the figure of an ancient
man, who seemed to have emerged from among the people, and was walking by
himself along the centre of the street, to confront the armed band. He wore
the old Puritan dress, a dark cloak and a steeple-crowned hat, in the
fashion of at least fifty years before, with a heavy sword upon his thigh,
but a staff in his hand, to assist the tremulous gait of age.
When at some distance from the multitude, the old man turned slowly round,
displaying a face of antique majesty, rendered doubly venerable by the hoary
beard that descended on his breast. He made a gesture at once of
encouragement and warning, then turned again, and resumed his way.
"Who is this gray patriarch?" asked the young men of their sires.
"Who is this venerable brother?" asked the old men among themselves.
But none could make reply. The fathers of the people, those of four-score
years and upwards, were disturbed, deeming it strange that they should
forget one of such evident authority, whom they must have known in their
early days, the associate of Winthrop and all the old Councilors, giving
laws, and making prayers, and leading them against the savage. The elderly
men ought to have remembered him, too, with locks as gray in their youth, as
their own were now. And the young! How could he have passed so utterly from
their memories—that hoary sire, the relic of long departed times, whose
awful benediction had surely been bestowed on their uncovered heads, in
childhood?
"Whence did he come? What is his purpose? Who can this old man be?"
whispered the wondering crowd.
Meanwhile, the venerable stranger, staff in hand, was pursuing his solitary
walk along the centre of the street. As he drew near the advancing soldiers,
and as the roll of their drum came full upon his ear, the old man raised
himself to a loftier mien, while the decrepitude of age seemed to fall from
his shoulders, leaving him in gray, but unbroken dignity. Now, he marched
onward with a warrior’s step, keeping time to the military music. Thus the
aged form advanced on one side, and the whole parade of soldiers and
magistrates on the other, till, when scarcely twenty yards remained between,
the old man grasped his staff by the middle, and held it before him like a
leader’s truncheon.
"Stand!" cried he.
The eye, the face, and attitude of command; the solemn, yet warlike peal of
that voice, fit either to rule a host in the battle-field or be raised to
God in prayer, were irresistible. At the old man’s word and outstretched
arm, the roll of the drum was hushed at once, and the advancing line stood
still. A tremulous enthusiasm seized upon the multitude. That stately form,
combining the leader and the saint, so gray, so dimly seen, in such an
ancient garb, could only belong to some old champion of the righteous cause,
whom the oppressor’s drum had summoned from his grave. They raised a shout
of awe and exultation, and looked for the deliverance of New-England.
The Governor, and the gentlemen of his party, perceiving themselves brought
to an unexpected stand, rode hastily forward, as if they would have pressed
their snorting and affrighted horses right against the hoary apparition. He,
however, blenched not a step, but glancing his severe eye round the group,
which half encompassed him, at last bent it sternly on Sir Edmund Andros. One would have thought that the dark old man was chief ruler there, and that
the Governor and Council, with soldiers at their back, representing the
whole power and authority of the Crown, had no alternative but obedience.
"What does this old fellow here?" cried Edward Randolph, fiercely. "On, Sir
Edmund! Bid the soldiers forward, and give the dotard the same choice that
you give all his countrymen—to stand aside or be trampled on!"
"Nay, nay, let us show respect to the good grandsire," said Bullivant,
laughing. "See you not, he is some old roundheaded dignitary, who hath lain
asleep these thirty years, and knows nothing of the change of times?
Doubtless, he thinks to put us down with a proclamation in Old Noll’s name!"
"Are you mad, old man?" demanded Sir Edmund Andros, in loud and harsh tones. "How dare you stay the march of King James’s Governor?" I have staid the
march of a King himself, ere now," replied the gray figure, with stern
composure. "I am here, Sir Governor, because the cry of an oppressed people
hath disturbed me in my secret place; and beseeching this favor earnestly of
the Lord, it was vouchsafed me to appear once again on earth, in the good
old cause of his Saints. And what speak ye of James? There is no longer a
popish tyrant on the throne of England, and by tomorrow noon, his name shall
be a by-word in this very street, where ye would make it a word of terror. Back, thou that wast a Governor, back! With this night, thy power is
ended—tomorrow, the prison — back, lest I foretell the scaffold!"
The people had been drawing nearer and nearer, and drinking in the words of
their champion, who spoke in accents long disused, like one unaccustomed to
converse, except with the dead of many years ago. But his voice stirred
their souls. They confronted the soldiers, not wholly without arms, and
ready to convert the very stones of the street into deadly weapons. Sir
Edmund Andros looked at the old man; then he cast his hard and cruel eye
over the multitude, and beheld them burning with that lurid wrath, so
difficult to kindle or to quench; and again he fixed his gaze on the aged
form, which stood obscurely in an open space, where neither friend nor foe
had thrust himself. What were his thoughts, he uttered no word which might
discover. But whether the oppressor were overawed by the Gray Champion’s
look, or perceived his peril in the threatening attitude of the people, it
is certain that he gave back, and ordered his soldiers to commence a slow
and guarded retreat. Before another sunset, the Governor, and all that rode
so proudly with him, were prisoners, and long ere it was known that James
had abdicated, King William was proclaimed throughout New-England.
But where was the Gray Champion? Some reported, that when the troops had
gone from King-street, and the people were thronging tumultuously in their
rear, Bradstreet, the aged Governor, was seen to embrace a form more aged
than his own. Others soberly affirmed, that while they marveled at the
venerable grandeur of his aspect, the old man had faded from their eyes,
melting slowly into the hues of twilight, till, where he stood, there was an
empty space. But all agreed, that the hoary shape was gone. The men of that
generation watched for his re-appearance, in sunshine and in twilight, but
never saw him more, nor knew when his funeral passed, nor where his
grave-stone was.
And who was the Gray Champion? Perhaps his name might be found in the
records of that stern Court of Justice, which passed a sentence, too mighty
for the age, but glorious in all after times, for its humbling lesson to the
monarch and its high example to the subject. I have heard, that, whenever
the descendants of the Puritans are to show the spirit of their sires, the
old man appears again. When eighty years had passed, he walked once more in
King-street. Five years later, in the twilight of an April morning, he stood
on the green, beside the meeting-house, at Lexington, where now the obelisk
of granite, with a slab of slate inlaid, commemorates the first fallen of
the Revolution. And when our fathers were toiling at the breast-work on
Bunker’s Hill, all through that night, the old warrior walked his rounds. Long, long may it be, ere he comes again! His hour is one of darkness, and
adversity, and peril. But should domestic tyranny oppress us, or the
invader’s step pollute our soil, still may the Gray Champion come; for he is
the type of New-England’s hereditary spirit; and his shadowy march, on the
eve of danger, must ever be the pledge, that New-England’s sons will
vindicate their ancestry.
http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com/new_page_1.htm
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
One Nation Under God, Liberty & Justice for ALL!
Networking and cross Networking For Freedom.
"The Rule of Law" v. "Laws that Rule"
"The Oath of Office" v. "The Rule of Law"
"Natural Law" v. Admiralty Law"
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
No more Waco's......
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil -
is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
Law Cases Relating to Oath of Office Issues:
OATH OF OFFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
FAILURE TO FILE OATH OF OFFICE OR BOND WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW IS
FATAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE; THE OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES VACANT;
LATE FILING IS INEFFECTIVE; EVERY UNOFFICIAL ACT IS VOID; AND ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED.
Persons chosen for public office may be required by law to accept the office
within a specified time and to qualify by filing an oath, giving bond or
doing whatever else the law declares necessary to entitle them to assume the
duties of the office.
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.
Failure to comply with such provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to
office. Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103, 31 SE2d 898, 158 ALR 631.
Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath. Boisvert v.
County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617.
Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so
requiring, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is
automatically vacant and may be filled as provided by law. Comins v.
County of Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533.
Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled as provided by law for failure
to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is not unconstitutional
and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated. State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when entering upon their
duties as justices thereof. Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U.
378, 131 P.2d 794.
Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a
compliance with the law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a
public office and any person who fails to file his oath of office within the
time limits required by law creates an ipso facto vacancy and such person's
acts are void and vitiate any subsequent proceedings. Parker v. Overman, 59
U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
Glossary of Terms:
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 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 Doctrine
(unconstitutional) will validate, on grounds of public policy and prevention
of failure of public justice, the acts of officials who function under color
of law.
.
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.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/
http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com/new_page_1.htm
http://americanfreeenterprise.blogspot.com/2005/06/its-dangerous-to-be-right-when-your-de.html
http://lawrencereytopham.012webpages.com/PetitionforWritofProhibition%5B2%5D.html
http://lawrencereytopham.012webpages.com/Thomasb5.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/OOParker.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/NewsMedia.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/EASTTEMPLE/TREASON.html
Lady of Justice Picture
Information:
http://www.art-exchange.com/art-exchange/artistbio.asp?FN=Ken&LN=Call
http://www.art-exchange.com/art-exchange/ArtResult.asp?ArtworkID=39729
http://www.utlitsec.org/html/articles.html
Chief Justice Roy S. Moore
http://www.retakingamerica.com/great_amer_ten_moore_001.html
