free web hosting | website hosting | Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | Coaching Institute | php hosting
affordable web hosting Pets web page hosting web hosting website hosting web hosting service web hosting best web hosting

Thomas B. Ginter

Sovereign Citizen

Kingdom of Heaven

Embassy of Heaven

8777 Basl Hill Road

Stayton, Oregon 

State of Heaven

10470 South Redwood Road #201

South Jordan, Utah

Sui Juris

Attorney Pro Se

                                            State of Utah - Under Martial Law__________________

 

IN THE WEST VALLEY CITY UNOFFICIAL MUNICIPAL JUSTICE COURT

3350 South Constitution Boulevard (2700 West)

West Valley City, Utah 84119

 (801)963-3500

 

_______________________________________________________________________

WEST VALLEY CITY, a Municipal,       DEMAND FOR PROOF OF JURISDICTION,

 Corporation,   (Unofficial)                       DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL ROTECTION       

A Racketeer Influenced Corrupt          PURSUANT TO AMENDMENTS I, IV, V, VI
Organization,18 USC 1961-1965             VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII, XIV,
AND COROLLARY

                                                                   PROVISIONS OF UTAH’S CONSTITUTION

                                       Accuser,              WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW- BRIEF

                                                                        FREQUENT RECURRENCE TO              

                                                                       FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IS

                                                                        ESSENTIAL TO FREE GOVERNMENT

                                                           UTAH CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I:27.
Thomas B. Ginter, Jr.                                       

Sovereign Citizen                                   West Valley City Case No. C 04 06941

State of Heaven                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                 Judge?  Keith L. Stoney  (Unofficial Judge)

                                     Accused.                                 UCA 76-8-203 A1 and 3 ________________________________________________________________________

 

STATE OF UTAH   )

                        ) ss.

County of Salt Lake)

 

Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction and Due Process of Law .

 

The falsely Accused, Thomas B, Ginter, appearing pro se (for self) Sui Juris (capable of managing one's own affairs) in the above entitled matter, hereby challenges the jurisdiction, power and existence of this court and the entire Justice Court system under the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah and provisions stated in this paragraph, and hereby demands all of his rights, privileges and immunities granted to him from God and recognized in the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Rights of 1774 A.D., Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 A.D., The Constitution of the United States of America, the laws made in pursuance thereof, treaties made under the authority of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Utah and laws made in pursuance thereof, common law, and that most holy, just and pure law of our Almighty Creator, Jesus Christ, the perfect law of liberty. Amen.

Demand to be Fully Informed to Insure Accused Does Not Unknowingly Waive Rights.

The Accused demands that he be fully informed throughout the proceedings at any and every time when he may be in jeopardy of waiving, without his knowledge or consent, any right, privilege or immunity protected, secured and guaranteed to Accused under any provision of the paragraph above. He demands that he be warned, sua sponte, (on its own will or motion) whenever danger of waiver becomes apparent to the duly elected or appointed and qualified magistrate exercising the functions of a public office in the above entitled court or any other court professing or claiming jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the subject matter of this proceeding, or the property of the Accused, a 1988 Toyota, of which the Accused has been deprived by force of arms by the accuser's agent Darren Mower.

The Accused demands proof of jurisdiction of:

            1.  Mower, Darren, who under the guise or disguise of a duly qualified peace officer of a political subdivision of the State of Utah issued citation #U82776428 on October 13, 2004 A.D., to the Accused, and at the time and place of issuance of the said citation did, without due process of law or equal protection of the law, deprive the Accused, Thomas B. Ginter, Jr. of his right to travel and of his right to personal property, i.e., a 1988 Model Toyota Corolla Deluxe, his sole means of transportation used in his exercise of his unfettered right to travel upon the highways of the United States of America and of the States therein, including the highways in the State of Utah..

2. Stoney, Keith L. who exercised or attempted to exercise, and continues to exercise or attempt to exercise, the functions of a public office in violation of  UCA 1953, section 76-8-203 a3, under the guise or disguise of an appointed Justice Court Judge in an arraignment hearing in this matter December 13, 2004 A.D., and continuing to this 23rd Day of February in the year of our Lord and Savior, 2005, and is aiding and abetting the upholding of the deprivations of the Accused’s unfettered right to travel and the means by which he exercises his right to travel, i.e., a. 1988 Toyota Corolla Deluxe motor vehicle, shipped in interstate commerce, and used by the Accused for personal and religious travel guaranteed, protected and secured under Amendment I , of the Constitution of the United States of America, made applicable to the States under Amendment XIV.

 3. Bunderson, Eric who is exercising or attempting to exercise the functions of a public office in the guise or disguise of a prosecuting attorney in the West Valley Justice Court for Accuser West Valley City through and by Darren Mower, thereby depriving the Accused of his right to travel  and of his right to property; the means to travel, i.e., a Toyota Corolla Deluxe being held  contrary to law without due process of law or equal protection of the laws and in violation of United States racketeering statutes, 18 USC 1961-1965, inter alia, in conspiracy with Keith L. Stoney, Darren Mower, the unofficial court clerk, West Valley City’s unofficial mayor and treasurer, David E. Yocom, who unofficially exercises the functions of public office in violation of 76-8-203, in conspiracy with Mark A. Shurtleff, Christine M. Durham, Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Edward T. Alter, Auston G. Johnson, Olene Smith Walker, Gayle F. McKechnie, Michael O. Leavitt, Norman H. Bangerter and the whole unofficial Utah Senate and House of Representatives, none of whom have qualified to hold public office because they acted under unofficial laws and unofficial Amendments to Utah’s Constitution unofficially attempted between 1973 and  February 22, 2005 A.D.  This has been done knowingly .

  4. The person exercising or attempting to exercise the functions of a public office as a court clerk in the West Valley City's unofficial Justice Court.

  5. Any other person involved or who may become involved in the exercise or attempted exercise of a public office in these proceedings under the guise or disguise of holding any public office .including, but not limit to, any legislative, executive or judicial office of the State of Utah or any political subdivision thereof. 

Accused Demands Proof of Oath of Office Duly administered, Taken, Subscribed and Filed.

 The Accused Demands proof that each person exercising or attempting to exercise the functions of a public office in these proceedings, or in any capacity relating to or affecting these proceedings, has a valid oath of office duly filed with the public official duly qualified as the official prescribed by law for filing oaths of office;, and that each such person has been duly elected or duly appointed to such office;, and under pains and penalty of perjury, has had the required oath of office duly administered and duly subscribed by the person duly elected or duly appointed to public office, and by the person duly qualified to administer such oaths of office, showing both signatures on the oath of office..

Accused Demands Proof f Persons Administering Oaths Were Duly Oath Bound.

The Accused demands that each person who has administered the oath of office to each person participating in these proceedings was duly sworn and duly qualified to administer such oath by producing their respective oath of office certificates, duly subscribed and duly filed with the filing officer for the respective jurisdictions in which they are exercising the functions of a public office.

These demands for proving jurisdiction- in a court of competent jurisdiction over the person of the Accused; the subject matter involved-the statutes or ordinances limiting the  Accused's liberty right to travel, and his right to own and control property of which the Accused has been deprived-a 1988 Toyota Corolla Deluxe; must me met before these proceedings may go forward.

Proceeding without formal proof of jurisdiction is a denial of due process of law. The Constitutions to which we owe allegiance require that no person be denied due process of law or equal protection of the laws. States are bound  by Amendment XIV.

Justice Court System Is Not Established Pursuant To Constitutional Law.

The Justice Courts System claims authority under Article VIII Section 1 of the Utah Constitution:  [Judges of courts not of record.] Judges of courts not of record shall be selected in a manner, for a term, and with qualifications provided by statute. However, no qualification may be imposed which requires judges of courts not of record to be admitted to practice law. The number of judges of courts not of record shall be provided by statute.  [This  provision is unconstitutional and void. There have been no valid amendments to Utah's Constitution since1973 A.D.] The Justice of the peace system is official and is still in effect under the constitutional laws of the State of Utah  A justice of the peace is an elective office under Utah's Constitution, not an appointive office. 

Last revised: Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Article VIII, Section 16. [Public prosecutors.]
 The Legislature shall provide for a system of public prosecutors who shall have primary responsibility for the prosecution of criminal actions brought in the name of the State of Utah and shall perform such other duties as may be provided by statute. Public prosecutors shall be elected in a manner provided by statute, and shall be admitted to practice law in Utah. If a public prosecutor fails or refuses to prosecute, the Supreme Court shall have power to appoint a prosecutor pro tempore.  

Title 78, Chapter 5, Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 120, and 125, of the "unofficial" Utah Code provide for a Justice Court System.  [This provision is unconstitutional and void.  An amendment to Utah's Constitution was required to change the justice of the peace court system to a justice court system.  Whereas no person has been duly elected or appointed and qualified as a senator in the Utah Senate since 1974 A.D., there could not have been any laws enacted or constitutional amendments officially proposed so there could not have been any such amendments passed. Therefore, there has not been a valid amendment to Utah's Constitution since 1973, A.D.  I hereby challenge any, and every, person in the State of Utah to prove otherwise. 

Three letters from the State Archives prove that the oaths of office of persons elected to the Utah Senate all failed to qualify for office for the terms of office beginning in 1975 through 1990.   These letters are attached to this filing, and are made a part hereof by this reference.

 

The Accused in this matter hereby demands proof that oaths of office of senators were filed with the secretary of state in the State of Utah before persons claiming to be senators attempted to exercise the functions of the public office of senator to change the state official with whom official oaths of state officials were and are to be filed.   Furthermore the unofficial lieutenant governor's list of oaths of office in the division of archives shows no oaths of office for any person elected to the Utah senate for the terms beginning in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989 A.D.  Therefore it is impossible for a majority of fifteen senators to have acted on any legislation for any of those terms of office.  Therefore there could not have been an official amendment to change Article VII or VIII, relating to the office of secretary of state or to the office of justice of the peace.  Therefore, there is no justice court in West Valley City or in the State of Utah, and therefore, Citation No. U82775428, issued to the Accused, Thomas B. Ginter, a sovereign citizen, is false and fraudulent, and was used to steal his 1988 Toyota Corolla Deluxe motor vehicle, and to deprive him of his right to travel therein under his constitutional rights and blessings of Liberty secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and Amendments XIII and XIV. Included herein as if fully expressed or quoted.

Return of Motor Vehicle Demanded With Damages Paid in Lawful Money Included

Therefore, the falsely Accused, hereby demands the immediate return of said motor vehicle, without delay, and demands compensation for the loss of time and expenses incurred in defending against this unjust usurpation of power and the malicious prosecution of him in this unofficial case.  Damages claimed exceed 7.67 trillion dollars in gold and silver Coin of the United States, the estimated current obligation of the Federal Reserve Banks and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush and John F. Kerry who have participated in the Racketeering enterprise with Accuser West Valley City and others named herein.  George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Joseph Lieberman, and Howard Dean are all members of Skull and Bones, a secret combination, the most influential secret society in America, who now control with their affiliated secret societies an excessive amount of the property acquired by criminal means in violation of !8 USC 4, 8, 334, 371, 471, 472, 473, 891-894, 1341-1343, 1961-1965, 2381, 2382, 2383, 2384,2385 and 2386, among others, thereby forfeiting their rights to life, liberty and property and the pursuit of happiness.

West Valley City, the false accuser, and Darren Mower, the unofficial policeman, and Eric Bunderson, the unofficial prosecutor, and the unofficial clerk, are all liable for the damages imposed upon the Accused for the false prosecution in which the Accused was threatened with the loss of his liberty for failure to attend the unofficial court by means of an unlawful order in the form of a false citation directing the Accused to appear in an unofficial court, the unofficial West Valley City Municipal Justice Court, or be put in jail for failure to comply.  This deprivation of rights goes much further.  The incident not only caused the falsely accused in this case to be left without private means of travel, but subjected him to incurring an extortionate extension of credit in counterfeit notes or coins or credit not redeemable in gold and silver coin from Harman's Towing ,  969-4749,   2923 S 3500 W, West Valley City, Utah or Kearns Towing, 2881 South 3600 West, West Valley City, Utah 84119, phone )801) 886-9202, Detective Hold call (801) 9633293.  This is part of a racketeering scheme to defraud the Accused by attempting to make him use falsely made securities and current coins of the United States and the Federal Reserve Banks issued through the twelve Federal Reserve Banks and circulated in West Valley City, Salt Lake County, the State of Utah, and throughout the United States of America and elsewhere.  It is an international racketeering scheme that is operating without authority of law and in violation of numerous provisions thereof, and in violation of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Utah.

Federal Felony Statutes Attached To Demand And Brief-Memorandum of Law.

“No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

AND OFFICIAL NOTICE

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 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

  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 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 4th day of November 2003 A.D.
Lawrence Rey Topham

Lawrence Rey Topham
Secretary of State and
Acting Governor of the
State of
Utah

BRIEF

The Right to Travel

 

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING IS A RIGHT”

 

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM, "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

 

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual.  Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license".  Some of these cases are:

 

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.  - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc.  NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

 

Case # 2 -   "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

 

Case #3 - It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S.  Constitution.  Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

 

  "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

 

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287,  293.

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions.  The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

 

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

 

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel?  Apparently not.  The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law.  One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

 

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error.  Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S.  Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e. - it is Unlawful.

 

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

 

The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right.  Is that not so?

 

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

 

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516  states very plainly:  "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

 

"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S.  22,  24.

 

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

 

Other cases are even more straight forward:

 

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."  - Miranda v.  Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

 

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

 

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.  945.  (There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)

 

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"?  (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

 

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S.  Constitution:

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding".  (This tells us that the U.S.  Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city laws that are in opposition to it.)

 

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that are bound by this Supreme Law:

 

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"  - ART.  6, U.S. CONST.

 

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch.  We are "Executive Officers".

 

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders.  Every U. S.  Police officer knows that they have sworn an oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U.  S.  Constitution.

 

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens.  Here's an interesting question.  Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

 

If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation.  For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.

 

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.  These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

 

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons.  Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

 

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

 

#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

 

Here is what the courts have said about this:

 

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain.  For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P.  1073, 1078.

 

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

 

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities.  However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves.  (See last page for additional references).

 

#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc.  (In other words, "by contract only".)

 

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right.  If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

 

This in itself raises a very interesting question.  What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

 

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights".  We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S.  Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e.  "laws of no effect".  In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

 

OUR SWORN DUTY An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S.  Constitution.  If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

 

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, driver’s licenses and other restrictions?  It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision.  (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

 

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do?  Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation.  THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

 

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character.  It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

 

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this.  In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.

 

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following:

 

Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free.  That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"

 

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling,  that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":

 

"THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE C