What would you say if I informed you that at least half of the states in this Country have passed legislation against, and/or is denying We the People of our fundamental rights? This is not about election denial, or how anyone may or may not feel toward the validity of our elections in the past. Anyone who asks for this simple, bi-partisan, constitutional right, should not be crucified in the mainstream media for wanting transparency of our ballot tabulation. The Constitution of the United States and International treaties state, ballots MUST be anonymous. This is the question We the People need to be asking of our elected officials nationwide as they continue to deceive We the People into thinking, that giving into our demands for transparency of the ANONYMOUS ballots, ballot images, or the “cast vote records” from the tabulators, will “break the secrecy” of the voters identity, and compromise states “critical infrastructure”. We need to make a decision here and now throughout this country, on whether we are going to let our differences of opinion get in the way of holding our elected and unelected officials who work for the US, continue to deceive us and demonize our completely normal requests for transparency of our elections.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 25 – December 16th 1966
“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 21 – December 10th 1948
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
The Constitution of the United States – Article 6 – Paragraph 2 – June 21st 1788
“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, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Throughout about half the states in America, we unfortunately have put people in office that apparently do not understand these fundamental rights and believe that the election process in their state, will somehow give away our right to a secret vote, by We the People simply asking for a look at the ballots, ballot images, or even more wildly of a refusal, the “cast vote records”. Because of this outright lie, they have chosen to deny We the People of any transparency of the elections in those states.
Claiming that the ballots have something on them that will lead back to the voter, would mean that they have run an illegal election, are guilty of violating the above treaties and the Constitution. Yet the Administration system (specifically in Washington State), is letting them have it both ways. Magistrates ruled first that ballots are anonymous (White V. Wyman), and
then multiple times after that ruled the opposite way, not following the precedent set by the first case (White V. Skagit County, White V. Clark and Island Counties).
There are multiple guarantees of our rights to these election records in the Constitution. Article 4 Sections 1, 2, and 4
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in its union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
Because of Article 4 and the rights guaranteed therein, the rest of the states by default are entitled to the right of transparency as well. Without it, there is no way for We the People to know if we have been infiltrated by bad actors, and when the legislature passes laws against these Constitutional provisions, that is a violation of Article 4.
Additionally, Article 6 section 2, “The Supremacy Clause” declares, that “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
By force of this constitutional provision, the government of the United States, as Marshall, C. J., said in McCulloch v. Maryland, “though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action,” and, to the extent, and in the exercise, of the powers delegated to it, it is a sovereign.”
The Constitution as being the Supreme Law of the Land, cements our rights definitively in “The Supremacy clause”. States are allowed to make their own laws and Constitution, but what they may not do is take away any rights given to us by the Constitution or by any of the other states.
They may give us more rights in their Constitutions, but they may not restrict us from what we already are guaranteed. And this fact is lost to many Americans today..
“The Preamble to the Constitution declares that, ‘We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ That the true significance of that declaration may be understood, it must be remembered that the people, whose ratification of the instrument gave it its legal validity were citizens of independent states, which had been theretofore bound together in a confederation, and which were thenceforth to be united under a government which, though limited in its action by the reservation to the several states of all powers not delegated to the United States, should yet be supreme within its defined bounds. (Murtino, Hunter’s Lessee, 1Wheat. 804, 325).
Therefore, the government created by the Constitution is, to the extent of the powers vested in that government, national in its character, and, by force of the rights reserved to the states, it is, also, a league of sovereign and independent states; and every citizen of each state, while owing allegiance to his state in all matters not controlled by the powers granted to the United States, owes also a paramount allegiance to the United States in all that is made by the Constitution of federal obligation. In view of this dual, and yet undivided, allegiance due by those who are citizens of the United States and also citizens of a state, it was, in the hour of its formation, and it has ever since been, essential to the right administration of the government of the United States under the Constitution that there should be a clear appreciation of the complex character of that government, and a careful maintenance of the balance of power as between the government of the United States and the governments of the several states.” (The United States, and the States Under The Constitution. Christopher Stuart Patterson, 1888.)
The Cited book, previously and after this mention of it, has what must be a thousand Supreme Court cases, and references that all support what is to be understood herein. What could be expressed here could span tens of pages, but I believe I have made my point and have given the reader the education that our public schools lack at providing, and the country unfortunately, has paid a heavy price by the loss of their rights unknowingly as we stand today..
The result of the authorities, so far as they afford an answer to this question, can be best stated by the quotation of a famous dictum originated by Mr. Hamilton and paraphrased by Chief Justice Marshall in the judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland, and which, in its final perfected form, is as follows: “let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to the end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” This dictum means that Congress may, in the execution of a power expressly granted, adopt any means which (1) are not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, nor (2) inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and which are (3) not the only possible means, nor an absolutely or indispensably necessary means, but an appropriate and plainly adapted means, to the attainment of an end authorized by the Constitution. (The United States, and the States Under The Constitution. Christopher Stuart Patterson, 1888.)
Whereas The Constitution for The United States, being the supreme law of the land, with the expressed laws and rights guaranteed therein, cannot be overruled by any state legislature or court, and it is the courts DUTY to declare that these rogue states have indeed passed laws abrogating our God-given, fundamental rights, there can be no other remedy then the striking from the record such laws, and granting We the People our rights of transparency of elections.
“Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract by evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the
the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute [or code] governs in cases before them for judgment.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d., Sec. 155).
A Corporation has the exact constitutional restrictions upon it, as the state that created it. If there is a violation of Law in [by] the defective creator, the creature is also defective. There is no corporation authorized by the People to act as government. The true definition of a sovereign is one that is answerable to The Supreme Divinity alone, and no other. The U.S. Federal Corporation or any municipal subdivision thereof i.e., STATE OF or COUNTY OF whichever [a corporation] is not sovereign. (19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations § 883 & 884 2003).
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. (Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.)
How on earth, are these rogues states operating in such a way that abrogates the Constitution for the United States? Because we have let them. To solve this problem, we must redress our government with grievances. Write a “remonstrance” to your representatives demanding any bill be declared null and void that is in violation of the Constitution. Do not let the BAR association, whether for you, or against you, tell you how the Constitution is to be understood. It is meant to be followed by the literal meaning of the words written. “It is black and white, it’s clear and concise, it says what it says and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.” (David Lester Straight) “We the People created the Government and therefore We control it.” (Maxim of law)
President John F. Kennedy gave a speech that addresses the exact issue that I am referring to, and poses the same question I have brought before you herein today. These words have not been heeded by these rogue states that are in violation of our Constitution today..
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security..”
(This is where these rogue states are deceiving us to think that what they are doing by censoring the press, and by depriving us of our Constitutional rights to public records is because of the risk to national security. This is a lie. As already stated, the public records of our election results do not pose any risk to national security, are not putting any “critical infrastructure” at risk, and will not expose any individual’s choice of how they voted because our elections are ANONYMOUS, per the Constitution, and International Treaties. The fact of the matter is that We the People MUST have the ability to make sure on our own that the elections have been correctly run and counted. THAT is the true public’s need for national security, so we can be sure that we have not been infiltrated by bad actors, and if we have that we can realize such domestic invasion and overthrow such government as is our DUTY per The Declaration of Independence.)
“..Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion..”
(As is the question I’ve posed today, are we going to let our differences of opinion get in the way of coming together on the simple fact that we must be able to see the election records? We are indeed facing a level of outright invasion, of infiltration on a level that I am presenting herein meets the definition of outright invasion. A level of subversion that has destroyed our understanding of elections, and rogue states that are indeed intimidating free speech, and any dissenting opinions of the conduct of elections by the demonizing and incorrect labeling of the expression of constitutional rights, that they call mis/dis and malinformation campaigns. This is what subversion is to my fellow Americans. There is no such thing as these terms. There is only information. Whether it is correct or not is a question that is solved by your due diligence and critical thinking and you should never give up your right to discern the difference of correct or incorrect information for what “Big Brother” is telling you is what should only be listened to and taken as correct.)
“..For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or
espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history. It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”
President Kennedy was not the only one to warn us of what can become of our Constitutional Republic if we do not hold true to the God-given fundamental rights that are enumerated to us through the Constitution. Is it going to blow your mind that our founding father George Washington, specifically warned us of this exact threat as well at the beginning of this experiment of government? Because he did..
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of the fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small, but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous ambitious projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. However, combinations and associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” (George Washington – “The Maxims of George Washington”, John Fred Schroeder, The Federalist Papers Project, 1854).
“Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of Innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different
shapes in all governments, more or less stilled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.” (George Washington – “The Maxims of George Washington”, John Fred Schroeder, The Federalist Papers Project, 1854).
Whereas herein it shows, there are states violating the Constitution and cannot sustain a rational connection between the fact that our election system is a secret vote per the Constitution and international treaties and therefore cannot be of any harm to any elections security infrastructure, and the ultimate fact presumed by their claims for an exempt status from any common law right of access or right to know law, FOIA, or PRA laws.
Constitutionally, “a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.” (Tot v United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed.2d 1519. 1943).
Whereas herein it shows, there is an irreconcilable variance between the Constitution and the revised code of Washington state passed by the legislature in SB5459 and taken effect in July of 2023, the Constitution for the United States is to be preferred per Alexander Hamilton. (Federalist Papers #78, Warning V. The Mayor of Savannah, First Trust Co. V. Smith, Marbury V. Madison, and the American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law section 177-178).
“If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.” (A. Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78 See also Warning V. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762. Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law section 177-178).
“It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate Constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO.” (Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939).
“Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby.” (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256).
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137).
“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180).
“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).
“Where a state statute conflicts with, or frustrates, federal law, the former must give way.” (U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725, 746; 101 S Ct 2114; 68 L Ed 2d 576. 1981).
“A void judgment does not create any binding obligation.” Federal decisions addressing void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940. 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed 370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed. 861).
“A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be lopped off, if the power to do so exists.” (People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am. St. Rep. 448]).
“A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. … It is not entitled to enforcement … All proceedings
founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.” (30A American Jurisprudence Judgments 44, 45.)
Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States rules, when passing legislation as Washington State Senators and representatives have by fact done with SB5459, that took effect in July 2023, every vote for such an unconstitutional bill of referenced individuals acting in their official capacity, may be held personally liable for damages based upon their actions.
Whereas this extended explanation of the way our nation is intended to be run per our Founding Fathers George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and President John F. Kennedy more recently, and the Supreme Court cases cited herein, and the Constitution of the United States, and International treaties, there can be no misconstruing of the facts that we are entitled to see the election records as they are public records. Not just for reason of curiosity by We the People, but for insurance against the tyranny of government over the people by installing bad actors and therefore constituting an invasion by infiltration and subversion of our laws. And thereby, they have broken the Constitution Article 4, section 4, guaranteeing us a republican form of government and protecting us from invasion, being in itself a form of domestic violence that the elected officials have taken oaths to protect us against.
To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: “State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” (Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21. 1991).
Whereas We the People are not taught in the proper amount in our educational system the basis of civics, There is a massive misconception of the law today. The American Jurisprudence is something that is not commonly quoted today and is lost by many Americans along with the knowledge that when presented with an Unconstitutional law, we are not bound by it, nor do we even have to acknowledge or obey the fact that it exists. We have God-given fundamental rights, not to mention internationally agreed upon covenants, and declarations of human rights. The public school system ran by the government has chosen not to teach us these things in hopes they can run our lives more and more by “edicts” and “mandates”, along with statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances, that are nothing more than corporate by-laws for government officials to stay in line with We the People’s wishes that is supposed to be set upon them by good legislation from the elected body We the People have chosen. Unfortunately, that is not so today..
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256.)
Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the authority of the common law Grand Jury in U.S. v. Williams, the state has no authority to counter that opinion. We have superior standing by invoking common law in the right way against all statutory law. These rogue states that are in violation of The Constitution MUST stop putting the common law and the Grand Juries underneath their inferior statutory laws. We The People (singular AND plural) have the ultimate authority!
Generally the statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. (American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 177.)
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences. (Pg. 403 – 405 16 American Jurisprudence 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70.)
Whereas this is meant to be a “Remonstrance”, or a notice, to all senators and representatives, as to their betrayal of We the People in this Constitutional Republic, not being misconstrued as being a “Democracy”, which also being unknown today, is actually the definition of a country under “Mob Rule”, We the People demand there be held an emergency session of the House and the Senate, and suggest for your own sake and ultimately at your own peril depending on your actions, to strike from the record SB5459, and to enact a new bill that will forever remind you senators and representatives of Washington State, of your place and your duty to provide full faith and credit to all public records, acts, and judicial proceedings per Article 4 section 1 of the Constitution for the United States, and enforced by Article 4, section 2, since other states are giving us these election records you shall not keep them in secrecy from us. And those senators and representatives in the other rogue states that are in violation of the Constitution for the United States in the same ways, are hereby put on notice, that We the People demand you to grant any current or previously denied PRR, PRA, FOIA, or Right to know/right of access
requests for review of ballots, ballot images, or “cast vote records”, without delay. And If there has been any legislation passed that obstructs We the People from obtaining such records they MUST be stricken from the record completely and replaced with a bill matching the demands given to Washington state.
Whereas The Declaration of Independence declares it to not just be our right, but indeed our DUTY, that when the government will not answer our stated grievances and continues to abrogate our fundamental rights, that we must remove such government.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
If our senators and representatives will not use this notice as fair warning to correct your ways be it purposeful or accidental, there is no other recourse for We the People left except to not recognize you as government and instead as a rogue corporation that has no lawful power, and is depriving us of our Constitutional, God-given, and fundamental rights, under the color of law.
In the event that there indeed is no changes made after this fair notice, and nothing seems to be going to be done in the near future, regardless if there is any relatable precedence to do such things, is irrelevant. Claims that there is no way to be in congruence with the Constitution of the United States will be taken as a refusal and imply that the consequences have been taken under advisement and accepted to have to answer to in a court of common law and We the People’s Grand Jury.
In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, (112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352. 1992), Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA WENT ON TO SAY: (in U.S v. Williams) “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right”. (United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977).; United States v. John H. Williams, Jr.; 112 S.Ct. 1735; 504 U.S. 36; 118 L.Ed.2d 352; No. 90-1972.)
Whereas the reader of this informative lawful document, having been informed of the felonies being committed, and of the conspiracy to commit these felonies spanning not only to our state governments, but across this nation in almost half of the states as of today, YOU have a DUTY to report these RICO felonies and deprivations of rights under the color of law to your government officials. Let me be clear that no one is going to hunt you down and throw you in jail for years because you read this document, but In the most extreme case, when there is documented evidence, or laws being passed with a vote from a member of the senate or the legislature, the law says that person who knowingly went out of their way NOT to report these felonies may be held COMPLICIT in these crimes and can be charged for Misprision of felony, and/or Misprision of Treason.
18 U.S.C., §4, Misprision of felony –
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)
Based on Title 18, U.S.C. 1940 ed., §251 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §146, 35 Stat. 1114 ).
18 U.S.C., §2382, Misprision of treason –
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147 .)
Based on Title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088 ).
If the conclusions of this informative lawful document has brought to your attention the feeling that you would indeed like these God-given, fundamental, Constitutional rights to be upheld, then please for the good of your state and your country, stand up for your rights and make a sheriff, judge, representative, senator, the SOS, or even the governor aware of your knowledge that they are in violation of our nation’s laws and demand they make an immediate change. Your complaint will in NO WAY be able to have charges brought against you for such actions. Every one of We the People has the right to make such demands and may not have any repercussions because of it.
“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.)
We the People are also entitled to recover damages for injury because of the deprivation of ANY right or privilege that has been done to us that is against the Constitution.
28 U.S. Code § 1343 – Civil rights and elective franchise
(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.
(b)For purposes of this section—
(1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and
(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Whereas, the government of ANY of these rogue states is standing today guilty of these crimes mentioned herein, I leave you with just the start of what these governments are implicated with, in the hopes it will encourage you to start standing up for the freedom each and every one of We the People deserve, are guaranteed, and that so many Americans have died for us to have.
1) Deprivation of civil rights under the color of the law – U.S.C. Title 18 SS 242 (criminal)
2) Conspiracy to deprivation of civil rights under the color of the law – U.S.C. Title 18 SS 241 (criminal)
3) Violation of Civil Action For Deprivation of rights – U.S.C. Title 42 SS 1983(civil)
4) Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – U.S.C. Title 18 SS 1961-1968
5) Violation of the Federal Freedom of Information Act – U.S.C. 5 Section 552
6) Violation of the Common Law Right of Access – to Governmental Records following Maxims of law that have been ruled on time and time again to make it Common Law
7) Violation of Article 4, Section 1, 2, and 4 – of The Constitution for the United States
8) Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights – U.S.C. Title 42 Ch. 21 SS 1985 (3) – Depriving persons of rights or privileges
9) Action for Neglect to Prevent – U.S.C. 42 ch 21 SS 1986
10) Violation of Article 6, Section 2, of The Constitution for the United States – The Supremacy clause. Not recognizing the authority that we stood on and demanded their release of the records that were granted to us by the supreme law of the land.
11) Violation of their Oaths of Office – to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic. which they have left us open to attacks, subversion, and infiltration/invasion of our government by bad actors.
12) Violation of Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights – “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
13) Violation of RCW 29A.84.720 -Officers Violations generally – “Every person charged with the performance of any duty under the provisions of any law of this state relating to elections. including primaries, or the provisions or any charter or ordinance of any city or town of this state relating to elections who willfully neglects or refuses to perform such duty, or who, in the performance of such duty, or in his or her official capacity, knowingly or fraudulently violates any of the provisions of law relating to such duty, is guilty of a class C felony punishable under RCW 9A.20.02 and shall forfeit his or her office.”
14) 18 U.S.C., §4, Misprision of felony
15) 18 U.S.C., §2382, Misprision of treason
Written by..
Zachary Larson
Precinct Committee Officer
Of the 25th Precinct, in the 39th Legislative District
of Snohomish County, in Washington State,
Leader of the Election Integrity Effort therein,
Investigative Researcher/journalist on financial, judicial and political corruption,
Leading expert on interpreting Constitutional rights And an Advocate for Civil and political Rights
