Friday, July 30, 2010

Constitutional Duties of a Sheriff

Constitutional Duties of a Sheriff

by Richard Mack (Utah)

Speech given at the Restaurant Social and Speakers Forum of the IAP National Conference, January 17, 2003, Taylorsville (Salt Lake City), Utah. Richard Mack is a former county sheriff in Arizona, successful challenger of the Brady Bill, and a member of the Independent American Party.

[Introduction by Will Christensen, IAP Western States Coordinator:]

Well its my pleasure to introduce Richard Mack. Richard was the sheriff of a small county in Arizona when the Brady bill was passed, and he decided that that was not what he wanted to enforce, and so he filed suit against the federal government -- he and a sheriff up in Montana, if I remember correctly. And he took that suit all the way to the Supreme Court and won a tremendous freedom victory. And I understand he's going to talk about the ramifications of that, so without further ado, my friend Richard Mack.

[Address by Richard Mack:]

Well, I think the most important aspect of that introduction is that I'm Will's friend. Thank you. Since I did that, I lost a few friends.

If I could have your indulgence for a minute, I am presently employed, technically not in the field of my choice. The one that I actually chose to be part of was stripped from me when I did the lawsuit on the Brady bill. But my second choice would be to be in the freedom movement full time, which is what I am right now. I work as public affairs director for Gun Owners of America. Let me tell you just a little bit about them. If you're not a member you should be. There's a few organizations in this country where you can put stock into their fundamental beliefs and agenda -- Gun Owners of America is one of them. I worked with them before I worked for them. Now I work with them and for them.

Larry Pratt is the executive director. You'll never meet a finer Christian and you'll never meet somebody in this country who has sacrificed more for the God-given freedoms we've been talking about tonight. Gun Owners of America is not a single-issue organization. They are the second largest gun rights organization in this country. But the biggest one in the country who believes in the fundamental values of the Constitution -- the principles espoused in the Constitution by the founders. They believe -- they are not afraid to say -- they're pro-life and anti-UN completely and totally. Of course, if you're going to be pro-gun you can't be pro-UN. And if you're going to be pro-life, you can't be pro-UN. And a lot of these hidden agendas that are part of the United Nations are freely talked about in our newsletter. And so I have here in front of me -- and its 20 dollars to become a member. And if any of you have already purchased my books, then for you its only 10. So you'd get both of my books and a membership in Gun Owners of America for just thirty dollars. That would make these worth five dollars each.

Let me, I would like to pass these around if I could, if you want one and could be a member, please do so. This is a very Constitutional organization and you'll get the newsletter and within the next year it'll prove itself to you. So if you could just make sure every couple gets -- I'd like everybody to join or at least every couple to join in that fight.

Cash, check credit cards, but I prefer gold or silver -- so a tenth ounce of gold would do it, or like three or four silver coins, probably four silver coins. You know, Will mentioned something. Will has been incorrect before in his life, and we could check with his wife on that, but he mentioned a sheriff that joined me in my lawsuit. Let me give you just a little real quick history on that.

When the Brady bill first was announced publicly, it was billed and advertised, propagandized from the Clinton white house as a mere waiting period to make our streets safer from people who would jump out of their house in anger to run to a gun shop, grab a gun and come back and kill their kids and wife. Which I tried to find out in all the police departments across the country if that had ever happened, and I couldn't find one incident of that ever occurring. And even if it did, this still wouldn't have prevented any such thing.

Anyway, President Clinton was propagandizing the Brady bill as a measure to make our streets safer for police; and a time, when of course its for our children, that they could play in the parks in public in safety because we'll have this Brady bill. Well that was another Clintonesque piece of propaganda and probably matched the truthfulness of his "I did not have sex with that woman ...."

Now, the Brady bill, when I got closer to it, I started getting a little bit worried about it. But I wasn't going to have a major heart attack and I never intended to file a lawsuit. I was sheriff the whole time that this was being talked about. I paid very little attention to it. I did not start forming a political action committee saying what are we going to do about this Brady bill thing. It happened when the BATF sent three of their agents to a sheriff's association meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. Any of you from Arizona know that there's only 15 counties in Arizona -- about half of what there are in Utah. And so to get 13 or 14 sheriffs together is not that hard. And we actually had 12 of us. We had a quorum. And the BATF shows up to address 12 sheriffs -- it takes three of them. And there -- you know what they were there for -- to hand us our marching orders as to how we we're going to comply with the Brady bill.

Now I was having a heart attack. And the rest of the sheriffs did also. The one from Showlow [Arizona], Gary Butler -- all of them did. You never heard so much cussing in your life. I guarantee you. And those sheriffs can cuss good even when they're not mad. And now they were mad. And we tabled the discussion until the next week we had a special meeting. And then we came back and said okay, what are we going to do about the Brady bill? And I said, if we all stand together against this, we can just say "no" to it. And they wouldn't do it. They went down. I said let's send a letter to Janet Reno, President, c-c it to the senators and put a notice in the paper that we're not doing it. And let the people know why. These guys were really afraid that the constituents would say that we're taking the law into our own hands, and we should set a better example than that. And so I said, there is no way I'm going to go along with this, and if we allow this then where's it going to stop. There's not a one of us that reports to the BATF, and they're trying to make it that way.

And so I came home from that meeting and talked to my boss and asked her what we should do, and told her I was probably going to file a lawsuit -- and see, and that is what's so stupid about all this, and maybe I showed my own naivete. I didn't form that committee and I didn't go around door to door and calling people and ask them if this was the right thing to do. There was only three people that made this decision -- and it was me, my wife and the good Lord. And because it was an automatic decision for me -- I certainly prayed about this absolutely. But I believe that the decision was made that quick. When the BATF showed up and said this, I said you know its over. You don't need to ask the Lord, if you know to say. do I need to do this good thing? You know, but certainly I asked for his help and his strength in performing the duties that are associated with this arduous task of suing the Clinton administration. A small town sheriff -- Grand County was thirty thousand people -- its a farming community -- copper mining area. And then when I filed the lawsuit I was alone. No one else in the country had talked about doing this -- NO ONE. And then luckily -- boy did I have a great day when I found out that Sheriff Prince from Montana was also doing the same thing.

He never called me -- I never called him. I never met him before in my life until we were asked to be on the Phil Donahue Show together. Of course the other side was there, Sarah Brady was there and an attorney from Handgun Control Incorporated. Here's two country sheriff's debating Sarah Brady and an attorney from Handgun Control Incorporated. And Phil Donahue said something that was very different for him. He said he really respected our constitutional concerns -- and that was on nationwide television -- he said that. So miracles were taking place with this whole thing. Ultimately, seven sheriffs joined the lawsuit -- filed lawsuits in separate jurisdictions across the country -- not more than one from any one state -- Vermont, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona. That's it. There's 3000 sheriffs in the country.

Seven filed the suit. And it wasn't without some real repercussions. Several -- uh two or three --of the sheriffs lost their re-election bids right away. And I lost mine about nine months before the decision came out that we won. And it really would have helped had we got that just a little bit earlier, but it was a four-year battle. Not quite a four-year battle. But to get to the District Court, Circuit Court, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court and get a victory in four years -- any of you lawyers know how miraculous that was -- it was really a miracle. And I'm telling you right now, that victory made everything -- losing the job, moving, losing the home and everything else, we completely started over -- COMPLETELY started over -- at how old were we, I was about 42, I guess.

And then to come up to Utah County -- and say, you know, because I was a cop in Utah County. I started my police career in Provo [Utah] and I was a cop for 11 years. And then some crazy people from Arizona had called me and said we want you to move home to Arizona and run for sheriff. And I told them they were crazy -- and this is one time my wife agreed with me that her parents were crazy. And she really did, you know. And then three months later we did the crazy thing, picked up and left, and went home to Arizona. And I took a leave of absence from Provo, because in case I didn't win, I could come back. And I had to commute to Provo for court cases and other things that I had to be there for -- like six times during the campaign. Sometimes I was literally campaigning on the phone from Provo. And its totally a miracle. So, and then after the miracle, we started to say winning this election, not having even lived in my own community for 13 years, and never being a cop in Arizona or my community ever before, and then winning sheriff. And we all talked about what a miracle that was. And my wife and mother -- both being sensitive to that when I filed the lawsuit on the Brady bill, both of them within a day -- mentioned to me, now we know why you were elected sheriff.

And it really did seem to be an errand for the Almighty. And it went a real roller coaster ride. That's really how I described the lawsuit. One day it would be that you know we were getting inducted into the NRA hall of fame; and the next day we were being demonized by the national media as right-wing extremist radical terrorists. And most of you've been called the same thing because you believe in the Constitution. And isn't it amazing that those who quote the Constitution and the founding fathers today are demonized as radical extremists and even terrorists. How sad that our Constitution has taken on that kind of public scrutiny. Amazing that our media would allow that to happen and that politicians who go along with this redistribution of the wealth and forced charity as we were talking about earlier -- see forced charity by government is tyranny. And if charity has to be forced, its not charity folks. Its not charity. Call it anything but charity. Its NOT charity.

And I thought all of that, and I started studying the Constitution way back -- and the importance of this book, its a short booklet, its thirty pages long, but its probably the most powerful thirty pages you'll read anywhere. It talks about my personal conversion to the Constitution. And did I say conversion? I said conversion, didn't I? It was a religious and spiritual experience for me. And it happened during the process, the biggest part of it was when I took a class -- taught by my mentor and friend and one of the most stalwart Constitutionalists on the face of this planet, when I attended his class called Constitutional Studies for Law Enforcement. You probably know who it is now -- Cleon Skousen -- W. Cleon Skousen. He was really famous for that, wasn't he? It didn't matter who he was talking to -- it was Constitutional Studies for Teachers or Constitutional Studies for Janitors, or Constitutional Studies for Cops, or Constitutional Studies for Cops Wives. It was all the same, he just named it to whoever he was teaching, but it was all the same class and it was always about the Constitution. And it talks about that in here, and how some things happened in my life that got me from being a numbers cop of just writing the tickets -- which I believe now is one of the greatest abuses of government that we have anywhere in our country. The revenue collection that happens because these guys wear a badge, called radar tickets, is an absolute outrage and abuse. It is a lark. We've got to change it.

And I really hope most of you know where I got the title for this book. Somebody mentioned a little while ago The Proper Role of Government. Well, I learned that from Cleon, just change it and make it a little bit more job specific. And so is this meant for cops to read this? Absolutely! And should every one of you read it first? Absolutely! And the jest of this is every police officer in this country took an oath and has taken an oath as well as most schoolteachers and every public official to uphold and defend the U. S. Constitution.

And what happens when we, as I was, as Sheriff placed in the quandary of choosing between statutory obedience or Constitutional adherence? See, that's the quandary I was in. There's a statue from on high from Washington, D.C. that said the Brady bill must be enforced by you sheriffs. And now I'm in the predicament of saying, but I read the Constitution. And I know that I was constitutionally elected by, for and of the people of Grand County, to protect and according to my oath, their constitutional rights. And in a democracy, I could probably have a lot of leeway, huh? You know, because as soon as one person or more than fifty percent of the people in my community said go ahead and enforce the Brady bill, you got our permission, then I could do that in a democracy. But in a Constitutional Republic, where I gave my word to protect the Constitution, if a hundred percent of the people in my community said for me to enforce it, I could not. Because I would be violating my word.

And you see, the founding fathers were naive in that sense -- is that when they put the requirement that every public official state and local would swear allegiance to the Constitution, they intended and trusted us that we would keep our word. And that might have been part of their problem. They should have put something in there that would punish us if we did not. And maybe they did, but it wasn't specific enough for today's political correctness problem. And I think you know if you don't go with the Constitution then you 're probably under the heading of the treason crime. But boy, I'll tell you if we have the FBI doing all of that, doing all the follow-up on all the traitors in Washington D.C.; boy would they be busy and finally have something to do that would be legitimate, huh?

And I would I like to make one other point out of this book. I make reference to a hero of mine. Her name was Rosa Parks. And do you know what? We need to pay attention to her story. Because what did she teach us? And what does the left side honor her for and -- in fact she got some congressional awards just a couple of years ago for what she did. And it was because she defied stupid law. And I believe that falls right in with our theory that defiance of tyranny is obedience to God.

See, she was arrested. It wasn't just a tradition that she give up her seat to a white man. It was the LAW! And what did the cop do when he got there? The same thing he tells us when he takes our gun or when he puts us in jail or he writes the ticket when we complain about his actions. What does he say? Just doing my job. You know I don't make the law lady, I'm the enforcer. And every cop will tell you that there's been plenty of times during his career that he hasn't enforced every law. We're not required to, we shouldn't and we shouldn't be obeying about 98 % of the laws or enforcing about 98 % that are there now, as a matter of routine.

If you've ever been to any of these courts that they call justice courts in Utah and across America? -- they are anything but. The judge is a rubber stamp for a police officer, and the police officer is a rubber stamp for the legislature, and here we have the executive and judicial and legislative branches all meshed into one. In fact, what are the police officers -- say, basically they are puppets for the judges and the legislative branches and that they are just following orders.

Well that's what the cop said when he went to arrest Rosa Parks. And he did arrest her and she was booked into jail. And she -- what would a cop that was really a statesman, that was really sincere about his oath of office, what would a sheriff have his deputies be doing if he took his oath of office seriously, then or now? He would have his deputy get on that bus and sit down next to Rosa Parks and make sure she got off the bus safely and got home in the same manner. And so when they make laws that are now today a violation of the First Amendment.

Okay, let's talk about guns. Let's start in California and work our way east shall we? In California they're confiscating guns, they're arresting people who have guns in their cars. They're taking the guns -- and even if the guy is found not guilty, the guns are still confiscated and destroyed under the nuisance law. You never get it back whether you're found not guilty or not. The right to keep and bear arms right now is subject to what? -- Government approval. Period, end of sentence, nationally. There's one state that has no permits. You can carry concealed or open anywhere in the state. Its Vermont. Thank you. Guess who has the lowest crime rate? Which state has the lowest crime rate every year? Yeah they're not very populated, its the crime rate per population, per capita we're talking about there. And yet, most people in this country don't even know that exists do they? They don't but they have that going on there.

And boy that brings us into now of course this book, this one's kind of beat up; this is my own copy, where I give my speeches out of it. In my son's school at middle school in Provo last year, he was taught that the word in the Second Amendment in his government class -- "militia" referred to -- you know it, referred to the National Guard or the U.S. Army. Do you know how stupid that is? And this liberal teacher was trying to re-write history, literally re-writing history, and telling my son a lie. Teaching him not what the founding fathers intended. Do you know that he could look up in any contemporary dictionary today and find out militia and its right. Look up in the dictionary "militia." I've yet to see one that was really wrong. They all call them a citizen's volunteer group. That's exactly what it is. Its a volunteer group of citizens. So is there a contradiction in the Second Amendment? No, the militia -- the citizen volunteers -- who what were called out by --? Another thing that's left out in most of our history books today -- Paul Revere. Paul Revere's ride. Start looking at your grade school history books. He's not in there any more. Why? Because, does that fit into today's society, where you have somebody riding through the country telling everybody to get their assault rifles out of the closet to come stand against tyrannical government? Ooh, we don't want people thinking that's okay. So that's got to be conspicuously left out of history books.

And what did one of my favorite quotes in the book here is -- George Mason, founding father from Virginia, legislator from Virginia -- this is page 178. "I ask sir what is the militia?" They told us. All that teacher had to do was do a little research, and it probably take her five minutes to find out what the militia really was. "It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

You see, in America we were intended to be the boss. How could we ever be the boss if we didn't own weapons of war? And I just think this is common sense. Does this mean we're supposed to have tanks and bazookas at our homes and what not? No, I think it simply means the weapons of war that are reasonably kept and born. Okay? I can bear this one. And that's really all you need. In a guerrilla warfare we could always win, and it is a great defense to tyranny and to any nation who wants to invade America. Because we have every one of us ready for them. Sounds worth while, doesn't it?

All of the citizens defending our country and defending our freedom. Its our responsibility. Read the Declaration of Independence.

If I got anything out of what the other speakers have said tonight, I believe that its time for another Boston Tea Party. It is. The Boston Tea Party was not violent, it didn't hurt anybody and it sent a strong message. That's how I feel. I want this to remain peaceful. I love America. I don't fear my government, I hate it. But the government is out of control. I hate Osama Bin Laden and I hate Sadam Hussein. But let's not play games here. The greatest enemy to America is within. The greatest threat to your freedom and mine lies within the walls of America. And one of the greatest threats to the God-given Constitutional American Liberty is our own federal government. We continue to have people who march around and prance around as pretended statesmen when they have proven that staying in Washington D.C. too long will ruin a good person. So Orrin [Sen. Hatch, Utah] you should have left about 20 years ago.

Also over at my table is a copy of the Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scallia. We've heard his name before. And if you don't have this, they cost me a dollar fifty to make them, and so I want you to have it. If you can't afford the dollar fifty, take it anyway. You can make as many copies of this as you like. Okay? Its extremely powerful. You would think that the Constitution was completely restored when you read through this. It was odd it was based on the Tenth Amendment. And I believe that this is where your sheriff really comes in to count here.

James Madison said in the Federalist Papers: "We can safely rely on the disposition of the State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." That's what your sheriff's supposed to do, that's what your governor's supposed to do, that's what you mayor, city council, county commissioners, dogcatcher, are all supposed to do. Teachers, school boards all of them. They are autonomous, you can see it right here, they are sovereign -- and yes, under article 1, Section 8, the federal government does have superior authority under those eighteen assignments, eighteen duties. Anything outside that they cannot do it. And so they are probably about 98 % in everything they do outside the Constitution.

On the bottom of page 19 it gave me the greatest reward we could have ever had. Justice Scallia, and I quote, said this: "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions."

I had a friend in the State Legislature who actually passed some of these around to other legislators here in Utah and they said, "how do we know that's true?" That was their response. That was their response!

I don't know how many of you were there when Alan Keyes came to speak in Orem [Utah], but he gave a tremendous speech about two years ago and he said this during that speech, and I added it to the book right then and there. I was re-writing this book at the time. He said: "The only difference between today's slavery and the slavery of the old South is that at least the plantation owners paid for the chains."

And now I would like to leave with you -- and I do this at almost 99 % of my speeches because this is when I became converted to the Constitution -- I would like to leave with you the political prayer taught to me by Cleon Skousen at that Constitution Studies for Law Enforcement. He teaches this to children -- which I have done since to all my children and other grade schools. But it was during this political prayer with sign language, his own made up that converted me that I felt the spirit of freedom and the spirit of Moroni and the spirit of America so strong in my heart that I have never forgot it since.

And it goes like this [accompanied with sign language]: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And he described what those wings are: That's America -- Long may she be free.

Thank you so much. I love you.

http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zhold/Speeches/SpeechConstitutionalDutiesOfASheriff.html

Saturday, July 10, 2010

LINKS - READ, LISTEN, LEARN, AND PARTICUPATE

FREEDOM & LIBERTY - TEA PARTY:

Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/
"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"
- Ron Paul (R-TX)

Loyal to Liberty - Preserving the Constitution
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/03/preserving-constitution.html

Tea Party Patriots
http://teapartypatriots.org/

Tea Party Express
http://teapartyexpress.com/

Freedom Works
www.freedomworksforamerica.org

Right Online
http://thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/tea-party

The Heritage Foundation, Leadership For America
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/religious-liberty-and-expression-under-attack-restoring-americas-first-freedoms

RADIO:
Alex Jones
www.infowars.com


LAW:

United States Justice Foundation
http://usjf.net/

Judge Andrew Napolitano
www.freedomwatchonfox.com

MORTGAGES:

Mortgage Foreclosures
Neil Garfield - Mortgages - Evidence
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/


SURVIVAL/PREPAREDNESS:





Friday, July 9, 2010

PUBLIC OFFICERS, You Must Uphold The Constitution

PUBLIC OFFICERS:


Every Public Officer in Graham County, has sworn to uphold the law, by adhearing to the United States Constitution of America, and The Constitution of Arizona. Each Public Officer, Judge, County Attorney, Board of Supervisors, ect. all take a Loyalty Oath, "Oath of Office" and a "Official Bond as required by A.R.S. and Source: Arizona Session Laws.

When you take the Office, and take the money, but fail to qualify for the Office, Each Officer becomes vaccant in that Office.  
 

Monday, July 5, 2010

DEBT FREE

Become Debt Free

Dave Ramsey – DEBT FREE SOLUTION
www.daveramsey.com

1. Unite with your Family.

2. Buy property with family,

3. Pay off loans, or house mortgages as couples.

4. Buy Food Storage, and Water.

FREEDOM WATCH - HOSTED BY Judge Andrew Napolitano

Judge Napolitano

Has a New Show Called "FREEDOM WATCH" Monday July 5, 2010.

Guest: Glen Beck

He discusses the Oil Spill with Glenn Beck

Obama's Solution with the Oil Spill.
- Geen Agenda
- More New Tax

He also discussed the new U.S. Sumpreme Court Ruling "McDonald v. City of Cicago"
Otis Mcdonald and Lawyer Alan Gura take on 2nd Amendment rights against the City of Chicago.

Friday, July 2, 2010

NATIONWIDE LANDMARK DECISION - McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521

ON JUNE 31, 2010
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Case No. (08-1521)
Otis McDonad has been robbed 3 times, and feels that he should have the right to protect himself, but the laws prohibiting guns keeps him from carrying a concealed weapon. It is however a US Constitutional Right, 2nd Amendement Right. His Lawyer, Alan Gura.
There are 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices and 5 ruled in favor and 4 ruled against gun rights.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/

CHIGACO, IL "US SUPREME COURT RULING"
ANY CITIZEN IN AMERICA IS ALLOWED TO CARRY A GUN.


Other LANDMARK DECISION Cases:
Rancher - Property Rights
Wayne Hage v. US
Case No. 91-1470L
Filed: August 2, 2010
Hage v. United States


.Sub-categories :

•Articles •Briefs and Opinions •Other Documents •Legal Counsel Overview:


Few epic battles for property rights have been waged and won by landowners, but Hage v. United States is one of the greatest stories of all time. After spending 13 years fighting the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for the right to use their land and water, Nevada ranchers, Wayne and Jean Hage, filed the most important federal lands takings case in American history. The members of Stewards of the Range supported their every step through the courts, which began in 1991.



The Hages owned the targeted property, Pine Creek Ranch, which was a combination of private land and federal grazing allotments that together controlled 1,100 square miles of Nevada’s High Desert. While the cow-calf operation is a normal sized ranch for the Nevada landscape (on average it takes 50 acres to feed one cow), the Hages controlled all the water on this vast landscape. The water is gravity flow to Las Vegas and gravity flow to Los Angeles.



The Hages found themselves in the crosshairs of those seeking to destroy private ownership of America’s resources through environmental regulations. In July of 1991, after the U.S. Forest Service confiscated their last remaining cattle and believed they had finally acquired this beautiful ranch property without paying a dime in compensation, Wayne and Jean did something never done before – they filed a claim for the taking of the rights they owned on the federal lands and their private property in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.



June 6, 2008, the Court handed the Hages a dramatic victory. The court refused the government’s argument that the Hages were merely leaseholders who had no property rights in the federal lands. Instead, the Court awarded the Hages compensation for their range improvements, the water rights which flowed from the federal lands to their private lands, and the ditch right-of-ways which included the forage on 50 feet of each side of the ditches. They also awarded attorney’s fees, which is a critical deterrent to future frivolous lawsuits.



This was a landmark victory for Western ranchers and Americans nationwide. Although neither Wayne nor Jean was alive to celebrate the victory, they most certainly left a remarkable legacy for private property rights protection in America.



The government has filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit. It will be many years yet before final compensation and attorney’s fees will be awarded, however, the precedent stands and is used by landowners and attorneys across the nation today.

 
E. WAYNE HAGE and JEAN N. HAGE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, CLAYTON YEUTTER, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, F. DALE ROBERTSO...


http://americanstewards.us/about-us/historical-victories/hage-v-united-states/briefs-and-opinions










Monday, June 28, 2010

FBI INVESTIGATIONS

The FBI Investigated Corruption of These two Superior Court Judges
1. Dudley S. Welker
Dudley Welker honored

2. Rustin Lines

Now The People of Graham County want a FBI Investigation of all public records, which is long overdue, dealing with the following:
1. R. Douglas Holt, Presiding Superior Court Judge
2. Kenneth A. Angle, County Attorney
3. Terry Cooper, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

We believe there is a conspiracy to commit fruad and racketeering between R. Douglas Holt, Kenneth A. Angle, and Terry Cooper, and possibly Preston J. Allred, that need to be resolved.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Dan Martinez - Property Rights

Daniel Martinez
v.
U.S. Forest Service



Martinez cattle are sold by USFS in Texas




Another chapter in the ongoing saga of a dispute between a rancher and the federal government has been written. Cattle impounded by the U.S. Forest Service were sold at auction in Texas last week.



The grazing allotment dispute between the Martinez family and the Forest Service, which has been simmering on the coals for well over a year, is now in federal court. The Forest Service said the cattle belonging to the Martinez family were illegally grazing on the Pleasant Valley and Hickey allotments in the Clifton Ranger District of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.



The cattle are from the Martinez Ranch, northeast of Clifton. The ranch was owned for decades by Abelardo “Abe” Martinez Sr. and was purchased by his three sons, one of whom is Dan, the family's spokesman. Dan contends the Forest Service is wrong and has acted illegally in the impound action.



He successfully filed a petition for an injunction in Graham County Superior Court in late November that kept the cattle from being sold in Dalhart, Texas, on Dec. 1. However, the case was moved to federal court by a U.S. attorney and the injunction expired.



Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson said in a Dec. 16 news release that 328 head of cattle were sold at a public auction in Dalhart for “about $159,606” on Dec. 15. He said 12 of the cattle died after they were in Texas.



“There was a two-week delay in selling the animals as a result of an Arizona Superior Court injunction, so the animals stayed at the sale barn longer than anticipated.” Dyson said. “Because of the two-week delay, 10 cows and two calves eventually died despite efforts of the sale barn and its veterinarian to treat the animals with antibiotics. There are still over 30 head scheduled to be sold at the Dalhart facility.”



Dyson said money from sale of the cattle “goes toward offsetting costs incurred by the Forest Service, the State of Arizona and the sale barn for gathering and caring for the cattle and completing brand inspections and ear tagging. If there are any receipts left, then the remaining money goes to the previous owner of the cattle.”



That is unlikely to happen. Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said impoundment and other related costs come to about $400,000. He said the amount received for the cattle was affected negatively due to the antibiotic treatments, which had to be disclosed to buyers, who must then wait 30 days before the cattle can be slaughtered.



He said a certified letter was sent to Martinez notifying him of the cattle sale and related facts. He said Martinez was also notified that 37 head of cattle that were still in Arizona were shipped to Dalhart on Dec. 16.



Dyson said the Forest Service tried for over a year to have Martinez remove the cattle from federal land. Dan Martinez, who now owns the Martinez Ranch with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.



At the heart of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes is a Forest Service requirement of the waiver of a grazing permit by Abelardo Sr. in order to have it reissued to his sons. The permit process would involve a reduction in the number of cattle that can be grazed and affect access to parts of the San Francisco River, Zieroth said.



In late July, Dan Martinez said the Forest Service wanted his father to waive certain rights, and his father refused to do so. He said his father has never been involved in the legal system and the Forest Service is trying to “take advantage of these small ranchers.”



Not so, Apache Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Zieroth said. She said the matter simply comes down to the fact the Martinezes do not have grazing permits. She said the USFS has tried to work with the Martinezes to resolve the issue, but they have refused to comply. She said the Martinezes' Pleasant Valley allotment grazing permit expired in August 2004.



On July 25, the Forest Service sent the Martinezes notices of intent to impound unauthorized livestock. Dan Martinez faxed a copy of the impound notice to The Copper Era. “Refused for Fraud!” was scrawled in large letters on the notice.



Martinez also said he would not resist removal of the cattle but would take action afterward. “I intend to prosecute criminals,” he said. “There's not even a court order. We haven't seen any legal documents.”



Zieroth said a court order was not necessary to impound Martinez's cattle and the Forest Service followed proper procedure leading up to and during the action. She said, “Under federal regulations, unauthorized livestock must be impounded and removed from federal lands, and if they are not redeemed by the owner of the livestock, they are sold at public auction.”



The Forest Service is relieved “to have completed this phase of the lengthy process in removing the cattle from the National Forest,” Zieroth said in the Dec. 16 news release announcing the cattle sale.



She said, “We have been especially concerned for the health and welfare of the cattle so we were a bit disappointed when the injunction delayed their timely disposition. We can now move ahead to authorize a new grazing permittee for the Pleasant Valley Allotment.”



While the case is in federal court, Martinez apparently intends to have his day in state court in Arizona. On that same day the remaining cattle were shipped from Arizona to Texas, The Copper Era received a faxed copy of a letter from Martinez's attorney, Billy W. Boone, to a livestock commission company representative in Dalhart demanding Martinez's cattle be returned to him or face court action in Arizona.



Boone said in his letter, dated Dec. 12, “Rather than avail itself of the legal channels in Arizona courts to challenge the rights which pre-date the Forest Service, the U.S. Forest Service simply stole the cattle without judicial process nor seeking authority of the courts in Arizona. He said the Forest Service circumvented the law by moving the cattle to New Mexico and then to Dalhart.



“Constantly moving the cattle from jurisdiction to jurisdiction when there are auctions in Arizona should make one sit back and wonder why?” Boone writes. “It certainly does not pass the smell test.”



Boone also says, “As you are aware, by letter from Mr. Dan Martinez, that he is the owner and there is a lien on those cattle for $600,000 that pre-dates the U.S. Forest Service's wrongful seizure of the cattle. Demand is hereby made for the return of Mr. Martinez's cattle. If the cattle are either sold or not immediately returned to Mr. Martinez, you along with the auctioneer company will join the individuals form the U.S. Forest Service as defendants in state court in Arizona.”



He adds, “Please be advised that Mr. Martinez has reported the theft of these cattle to the appropriate authorities in Arizona.”



Recall started



Boone does not say in his letter what “proper authorities” he is referring to. They certainly are not authorities from Greenlee County where the cattle were rounded up and impounded. Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier and Sheriff Steve Tucker said the cattle impoundment is a federal matter over which they have no jurisdiction. Their stand has angered some people in Greenlee and a recall of both has been started.



Duncan resident Donald Vandell filed an “application for serial number for recall” on behalf of Americans For Property Rights on Dec. 6 with the Greenlee County Elections Director's Office.



Vandell said in the filings on Rapier and Tucker that both “stood by while U.S. Forest Service employees broke Arizona law.” He said both refused to enforce a provision of the Arizona Constitution that says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.



In both documents Vandell said, “This property includes cattle. A court order is required to forcibly remove an private property from a citizen of the State of Arizona, United States of America. The U.S. Forest Service has not received a court order from a court in Arizona.”



In a second letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, Rapier reiterates his stand that federal and not local law applies to the case and the county has no jurisdiction in the matter.



Posted by Frank DuBois at 12:53 PM 0 comments Permalink
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_thewesterner_archive.html




Martinez cattle case moves to federal court


By Walter Mares, Copper Era managing editor

Published on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 11:09 AM MST



A case involving the impoundment of cattle by the U.S. Forest Service is headed to federal court. That, and not the county superior court, is where Forest Service officials and the Greenlee County Attorney say the matter belongs.



The U.S. Attorney's Office in Albuquerque moved the case to the federal district court in Phoenix on Nov. 29. The move was made after the cattle's owner filed an injunction locally to prevent sale of the cattle, most of which have already been shipped to Texas for sale.



The cattle, belonging to the Martinez family, were impounded by the Forest Service in October and November. The Forest Service said the cattle were illegally grazing on two allotments on Forest Service land near the Martinez Ranch northeast of Clifton. The USFS said the Martinez family's grazing permit for the Pleasant Valley was canceled in 2004 and the Martinezes never had a permit for the Hickey allotment.



Dan Martinez, who is the spokesman for the ranch he owns with his two brothers, adamantly disagrees with the Forest Service and said removal of the cattle is a criminal act on the part of the federal agency.



Waiver of a grazing permit is at the center of the dispute between the USFS and the Martinezes. Abelardo Martinez Sr., who owned the ranch since the 1940s, sold the ranch to his three sons. The Forest Service is requiring Martinez to waive his permit to the agency so it can then be issued to the sons. Dan Martinez, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., said his father will not waive the grazing permit and the USFS is trying to make him give up his rights.



Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Supervisor Elaine Zieroth said waiver of the Pleasant Valley permit and reissuing it to the Martinez brothers would involve two modifications, and that appears to be what the Martinezes object to. One modification involves decreasing the number of cattle that can be grazed on the Pleasant Valley allotment. The other change involves modifying grazing along the San Francisco River to meet environmental regulations.



Dan Martinez has said in court documents he filed in Graham County Superior Court that the Forest Service has broken the law and stolen the cattle from his private property. Martinez has also filed a deed claim on the Pleasant Valley allotment with the Greenlee County Recorder's Office claiming the allotment is his private property.



The Forest Service said Martinez is wrong. Zieroth told The Copper Era the allotment is not part of the Martinez Ranch. She said it is Forest Service property and Martinez's deed claim is invalid. She said “there is no mechanism” for Martinez to legitimately claim the property as his. She also said Forest Service personnel have not been on the Martinez Ranch itself, other than perhaps to use a county-maintained public road that runs through a corner of the property.



“We had it surveyed and put up markers to make sure we did not go onto the Martinez property,” Zieroth said and reiterated neither the Pleasant Valley nor the Hickey allotments are the Martinez's personal private property.



Greenlee County Attorney Derek Rapier is in agreement. Rapier wrote a letter to the editor in today's Copper Era, which said, “Mr. Martinez appears to rely heavily on a case known as Hage vs. U.S. Mr. Hage made land claims very similar to Mr. Martinez and in 2002, the court ruled against Mr. Hage. The court looked at all of the laws Mr. Hage presented going back to 1785 and found that none of them give the rancher any ownership in federal grazing lands.



“The court also looked at U.S. Supreme Court decisions from as early as 1911 and as recent as 2000 which all ruled that use of public lands never turns into ownership of public lands. These decisions also make it clear that the federal government has exclusive authority to manage federal public lands, including the power to modify permit conditions and reduce herd size.”



Rapier and Greenlee County Sheriff Steve Tucker have been criticized by Martinez and some of his supporters for not intervening and preventing the Forest Service from impounding the cattle. Both maintain the matter is a federal issue in which they have no jurisdiction.



“Although individual county officials have expressed their personal opinions on this issue, under the current state of the law, Greenlee County has no legal authority to get involved in the dispute between the Forest Service and Dan Martinez,” Rapier said. “Although Mr. Martinez believes otherwise, no law or court decision, either federal or state, supports the view that county government has authority over the federal government regarding management of federal lands.”



Around 300 head of cattle that were rounded up and impounded were shipped Dec. 1 to Dalhart, Texas, for sale. A few remain in Arizona. Most of the proceeds will go toward offsetting the USFS's costs of impounding and shipping the cattle, Zieroth said.



Martinez filed a petition for injunction to stop the sale and prevent any more of his cattle from being shipped out of Arizona. He filed the petition in Greenlee County Justice of the Peace #1 Court and was heard by Rocky Manuz. It was forwarded to the Greenlee Superior Court, where Judge Monica Stauffer recused herself. The matter was moved to Judge Corey Sanders in Graham County Superior Court. Sanders granted a 10-day injunction on transport and sale of the Martinez cattle.



Clifton District Ranger Frank Hayes said the actual injunction was signed Nov. 28, the same day Martinez also filed a request to make the injunction permanent and request the livestock be returned to Arizona. Hayes said the Forest Service was not notified until it was served with an order to appear at a Dec. 1 hearing. However, that hearing was canceled.



On Nov. 29, Albuquerque-based U.S. Attorney Howard Thomas removed the case to the federal district court in Phoenix. Hayes said Thomas agreed to keep the injunction on sale and transport of the cattle in place for the meantime.



Forest Service spokesman Bob Dyson, Springerville, said he expects quick action on the case but did not have a specific hearing date. “It's too early to tell as far as a hearing,” he said. “I'm sure the U.S. attorney is working on it now.”



Dyson said federal court is where the matter belongs. “We've always assumed since its (grazing dispute) inception that's where it was headed.



“We've always felt this is a federal action and does not pertain to state or local statutes,” he added.



Dan Martinez said the Forest Service is trampling on his federal and state constitutional rights. He also said the USFS has failed to use due process and did not have a court order to remove the cattle. Zieroth said the Forest Service followed every legal procedure necessary and a court order was not required. “We are doing it under federal laws and regulations that allow us to administratively impound anything that's trespassing on the forest,” she said. Hayes said the Forest Service “has bent over backward” to amicably resolve the dispute with the Martinezes and the cattle impoundment was a last resort. Zieroth said after the notice of impoundment was issued in July, letters were sent to Martinez giving him a final opportunity to remove the cattle, but he chose not to.

http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2005/12/07/local_news/news02.txt


UPDATE:

The Environmentalists threatened the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service by way of suit in a letter and is now considered evidence in a Civil RICO Action and are now looking at serving prison sentences of 20 years each if convicted, there is evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Racketeering as a Organized Crime Syndicate.      

Friday, June 25, 2010

Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States


SECEEDING FROM THE UNION


I believe Sucession from the Union, should be the main priority or agenda that is most talked about in this country. It is very important that Sucession should be taken seriously by every State in the Union. Doing everything phisically possible to enure that every citizen in America is protected from our Federal Government. The Government works for the people because we have allowed them to, and they only exist because we allow them to exist. The People of America have the right to abolish our Federal Governement if they overreach their boundies or thier very existence is so out of control that we are to take arms in order to protect ourselves from such Communists.

Arizona
Thumbnail

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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 notwithstanding.

Please refer to the Folloewing links for information on Secession.
http://secessionnews.com/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/39377/secession.html?cat=37
http://secessionuniversity.com/

Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States

Since my first report of Texas and Louisiana residents petitioning the federal government to peacefully withdraw from the United States, the numbers have grown, until now all 50 states have petitions going and many of them have already succeeded in making their goal and topping the 25,000 necessary signatures, which triggers an official response from the White House.

While some commenters have claimed that is was only a 100,000 or so people that were pushing this, the figures are pushing upwards of 1 million and that is just since Saturday. The petitions are gaining national attention and I’ve received many emails in support of the effort and some that are against it.

Let me say those who are opposed believe that this is what Barack Obama wants: divide and conquer.

Well, stop and think for a moment. We are divided in this society. It wasn’t just Barack Obama doing it though. Mitt Romney made the comment that there are 47% living on the government dole and Obama supporters. Well, that wasn’t completely true as I wrote about here. However, both men saw the country divided ideologically. It is. There is no getting around that.
But here’s the good news. These petitions to peacefully withdraw so a common unity around the principles that the Founders united around. Remember, the Revolutionary War was not wanted by the majority of the people. Neither was the War of Northern Aggression. But both were fought on principles and both were fought because of an oppressive government.

I do not wish to see bloodshed here in America with a war. In fact, that is the last thing I want. It is the last thing these petitioners want. Their petitions are for a “peaceful withdraw,” not a forcible one.

With all of this said, it will be interesting to see exactly how the White House responds. I’m guessing they will basically blow it off and say there will be no withdrawing, but then again look who is being petitioned. However, I think the public knowledge that there are those of us who are fed up with an ever encroaching federal government by both parties is healthy for the country as a whole. These states will not be divided. I am confident that we will look out for each other, but those of us who do not believe it is government’s place to be charitable would like to voluntarily do that, not be forced to do so.

Though you can find in my previous article a list of states and petitions, I’m providing and updates and alphabetized list here for quick reference.

May things remain peaceful and God grant us changed hearts of our leaders and our people and true repentance of His own people, the Church, and may He heal our land.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/#ixzz2JRUkV9QK

Source:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/

Read More:
http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/11/union-dissolving-40-states-now-petitioning-white-house-for-secession/

www.successcouncil.com



DECLARING SOVEREIGNTY

Articles
Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty
Oklahoma House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion
21 States Claiming Sovereignty
Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World
States Rights, 10th Amendment & Secessionist Movement 2009
New Hampshire and Washington legislators reaffirm states' rights UPDATE: 8 more states
States take the tenth
State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
Federalism and the 10th Amendment
Oklahoma declares Sovereignty!
States Rights Movement vs Federal Government

21 States Claiming Sovereignty


21 States Claiming Sovereignty

  •  





Freedom’s Phoenix
February 12, 2009
21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA
Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out.  As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment.  HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with.  However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play.  Check them out:
AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AK:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AR:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
CO:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
ID:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
IN:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
KS:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
ME:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
MI:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf
MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
NV:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009





Ernest Hancock

Freedom’s Phoenix

February 12, 2009

21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA

http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out. As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with. However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:

AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AK: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AR: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered

CO: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm

ID: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

IN: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

KS: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

ME: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

MI: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf

MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

NV: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)

WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

http://www.infowars.com/resources/states-rights.html

 

SPECIAL ACTION - Due Process


and Request for Admissions
Discovery - Aberment
AZ Rules of Civil Procedure 8d

other cases: Include CV2010-007, CR2009-096, CR2008, CV2005-022

IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM

Name , ex rel People of State of Arizona
                                      Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA - GRAHAM COUNTY
Presiding Superior Court Judge; R. Douglas Holt,
Superior Court Judge; D. Corey Sanders,
JP Judge; Gary Griffith,
County Attorney Kenneth Angle,
Deputy County Attorney; Leslie Capace,
Deputy County Attorney; Stuart G. Ross,
Judge Robert C. Pursley,
Judge Richard M. Jernigan,
Judge Chris C. Long,
                                       Defendants,


CV2009-300 Discovery Questions
43 Questions, name

1. Do you agree Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated Title 38 Ch. 1 Genneral Provisions Article 1 Definitions 101.Definitions for Office Board or Commission, Public Institution, Officer, or Public Officer, is the subject matter?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

2. Do you agree, there is a mandate on a public official to indorse thereon his official bond, by the officer, and the approving officer in reference to Tiltle 38-253?
Arizona Revised Statutes, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 231. 1912 adopted as the law of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

3. Do you agree, that (Title 38-253 Approval of Bond Filing), is the time prescribed for filing the oath and the bond one day prior to taking any office? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19 Section 227 and 228. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

4. Do you agree bonds of deputies and employees, shall be filed with the officer appointing the deputy or employee? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901Chapter 15, Section 210 and 215. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

5. Do you agree the board of supervisors under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law, may: 1Supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts of and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing the public revenues see that such officers faithfully perform their duties and direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and, when necessary, require the officers to renew their official bonds, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection. ARS Title 11-251, Powers of the Board. See Soruce: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, chapter 14, Section 200. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

6. Do you agree, the board of supervisors has the power to fill by appointment all vaccancies occorring in county or precinct offices? See Ref. (ARS Ttile 11-251 Paragraph 16.) See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901. 973, 1000, 1012, 1027, 1044, Laws of 1912. Chapter 62, Section 1.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

7. Do you agree, that a failure to qualify or take the oath of office, or to file the official bond within the time prescibed results in an absolute loss of the right to enter on the office? See source Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

8. Do you agree, that where statute provides that an officer who failed within a timely mannor to qualify to file his bond shall be deemed to refuse such office? See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

9. Do you agree, that it has also been held however that a defacto board or body cannot create a dejure officer?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

10. Do you agree that one who is not entitled to hold or perform the functions of more than one at one time, may not collect compensation for more than one office, for the same period, unless authorized by law.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

Questions 11. - 43. , Comming Soon!