MUNICIPALITIES, PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS - ARE TRUSTEES!
Take a Look, and think it through; IF They're the Trustee, that makes me
the Beneficiary (of the Public Trust)! See 63C Am JUR.DOC
"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in
consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office ... The
liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in
his 'individual', not his official capacity ..."
70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.
AmJur 2nd 63 C
at section 247 it spells it out right directly out of the volume 46's
Statutes at Large, it says that all public officials right down to the
garbage man are trustees to execute the closure of the public debt and that
any issues that is brought to them by the private sector for them to execute
the closure of anything, if they fail to execute that they will be held
responsible for not executing their oath and them being a Trustee to the
bankruptcy.
American Juris Prudence - on public `officers' ARE trustees :* *63C
Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247*
"As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held
in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government
or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.
[1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers,
within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be
their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor
under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative
to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.
[2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the
political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.
[3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.
[4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer
cannot be less than those of a private individual.
[5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the
public official who tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the
sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. Fraud in
its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings
that fraud bears [483 U.S. 372] in the statute.
See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir1985) includes the
deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary
obligation.
A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case
of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately
conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v
United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)
Griswald Marc 31, 2011 transcript: "And this one, Trist (Burke) v. Child 88
US Rpts. It starts at page 441 and these same comments that I just read are
on page 450. That’s a US Supreme Court case. They’ve said it too. Now,
that’s an old case, much older than this case but they’re just bringing the
history forward of what this government is supposed to really be about by
citing these older cases. Anyway, they go on to say: As fiduciaries and
trustees of the public weal they are under an inescapable obligation to
serve the public with the highest fidelity in discharging the duties of
their office. They are required to display such intelligence and skill as
they are capable of, to be diligent and conscientious, to exercise their
discretion, not arbitrarily, but reasonably and above all to display good
faith, honesty and integrity. Another ha ha, and a half a dozen more court
cases are cited under that, repeating that very same statement in these
other previous cases. The next statement they made was referring to the
government officials: they must be impervious to corrupting influence. They
should stay the hell away from lawyers, then, shouldn’t they? And they must
transact their business frankly and openly in the light of public scrutiny
so that the public may know and be able to judge them and their work fairly.
When public officials do not so conduct themselves and discharge their
duties, their actions are inamenable to and inconsistent with the public
interest and not only are they individually deserving of censure and
reproach but the transactions which they have entered into are contrary to
public policy, illegal and should be set aside to the fullest extent
possible, consistent with the protecting of the rights of the innocent
parties."
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE NO JURISDICTION OR IMMUNITY
The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of
ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo
v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. _(2001) (no
expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its
Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business),
affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot
restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully
acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"),
and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.__
(1998). In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was
awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction
of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.
Presidential documents: FEDERAL REGISTRY 48 #38 Title 3, Executive Order
12407, signed on February 22, 1983, by Ronald Reagan revoked all powers from
municipalities, policing, and maintenance, referenced at; Community
Communications Co. v. Boulder, Colorado, “ours is a "dual system of government," Parker, supra, at 317 U. S. 351,
which has no place for sovereign cities.”
“Held: A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from
its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its
officers as a defense to such liability. Pp. 635-658.” Owen v. City of
Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
“…state and its agencies are endowed with absolute sovereign immunity to
tort liability except to the extent that such immunity has been abrogated
legislatively, but subdivisions of governmental and municipal corporations
are not shielded from tort liability by governmental immunity” William v. Primary School Dist. NO. 3, 3 Mich App 468.
“Public Policy of state dictates that defense of governmental immunity to
tort actions should no longer exist.” Branum v. Board of Regents, 5 Mich App 134.
"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United
States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil
in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were
formed... ...[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the
limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly
granted... ...Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common
law..." Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)
RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE
“The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The
makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the
pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual
nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of
the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material
things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts,
their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the
Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every
unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the
individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the
Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of
facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to
the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's
spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only
a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in
material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their
thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.”
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J.,
dissenting);
see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990)]
See the rest of this argument in the
No Municipal Jurisdiction document
|