Municipalities, Public Officials and Administrators

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

" 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."


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 immunityWilliam 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)

“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

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)

The ruling and precedent of the above-referenced case, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, is herein referred to as the Clearfield Trust Doctrine, and is seminal and foundational in the legal-commercial-monetary system of today’s world, and is stare decisis on all courts in the United States and every State of the Union. The Clearfield ruling, in pertinent part, is deemed as consisting of the following principles of law, per the United States Supreme Court decision in Bank of the US v. Planters Bank, (1824), 9 Wheaton (22 U.S.) 904, 6 L Ed 24: entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules unless it, like any other corporation, can contractually prove that it is the holder in due course of some negotiable instrument between it and the one on whom its demands for payment/performance are made, and it is willing to produce said document, and to place the same into evidence before trying to enforce its demands.

Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen... Where private corporate commercial paper and securities is concerned ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government. [Emphasis added.]

In accord with Clearfield, the United States Supreme Court allegedly also ruled that when governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation. FHA v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242.