Reporting Information To Ensure Government Of Value

In the research of the constitution and laws of Utah, and the constitution for the united states, these points became evident.:

1. The “vulnerable adult” law was found to be unconstitutional because it rendered all persons in Utah, who are 65 years old or older, incompetent to make decisions by virtue of their age only.

2. This “law” became effective on May 10, 2011.  

3. In 1984, the total judicial branch of Utah government was eliminated because of the repeal of Article 8 of  the Utah Constitution. This manditorily retired all courts, districts, ALL judges, and ALL prosecutors. It also caused all rules and statutes, associated with the judicial branch of Utah Government, to cease to exist.  The subsequent re-enactment of a new article 8 requires all judges of courts of record and state prosecutors to be admitted to practice law in Utah by the Supreme Court of Utah. But since the Supreme court was abolished with the repeal of the old article 8, there was,and is, no one to admit anyone,  judge or prosecutor, to practice law, therefore, no legal judiciary under the new Article 8 -- SINCE 1984.  

4. The repeal of Article 19 of the Utah Constitution, in 1988,  rendered Utah NO LONGER A STATE! - And the Utah Constitution NO LONGER VALID!    

5. The repeal of Article 21 of the Utah Constitution, in 1992,  ELIMINATED the constitutional authorization to pay salaries to all city, county and town officers.  Yes, This Includes Sheriffs…But was a moot issue because of #4 above.

6. The creation, (in the new article 8 of the Utah constitution) of the judicial council, who lists candidates to be judges and the Governor appointing persons from that list, is unconstitutional under Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution which guarantee's  each state a republican form of government.  The PEOPLE are to pick their judges by vote, or Vote them in, not vote them out only.

7. Both the old and NEW Utah constitutions, at article 1, section 26 states:

The provisions of this constitution are
mandatory and prohibitory unless by
express words it is declared to be otherwise.

Meaning that if it is in the constitution, it is mandatory and if it is not in the constitution, it is prohibited. Because of Article 1, Section 26, there can be NO assumed meaning to any provision. Neither the old article 8 or the new article 8 ever required any

Utah News and Information page


attorney or judge to be “licensed to practice law in Utah” - So being licensed to practice law in Utah” is prohibited as a matter of law.  The new article 8 does not even require anyone to be “ learned in the law” (this requirement was taken out).  Even Judges (if any could be installed legally) are not required to be learned in the law or to be “licensed” to be a judge; those requirements are not in the Utah constitution and therefore, prohibited. There are no “Districts” created by the new Article 8 and no “number of judges” established.  These Items were to be created by statute but, sadly, were not til nearly 4 years later, in 1988,  way past the required deadline, of July 1985, to have it done.  There were also no rules or statutes created to replace all those terminated at the repeal of article 8 in 1984.

8. Though the old statute states that all attorneys are required to be licensed by the Utah state bar and to be members of that same bar to practice law in Utah, the Utah constitution does not state it or support it; therefore, it is an unconstitutional statute.  

9. The “Utah state bar association” and some of its members, also being members of the Utah legislature, are responsible for orchestrating these three repealed articles in an effort to put the Utah state bar association -WHICH IS NOT AND CANNOT BE ANY PART OF THE UTAH STATE GOVERNMENT - in control of the Utah state judicial branch, by requiring anyone who desires to conduct the business of law, as a profession, to be “licensed” by them.  

10. Because of the forgoing, all verdicts, fines, sentences, judgements or anything else that was officiated over by any alleged judge or prosecuted by any alleged county attorney or public prosecutor or district attorney, (They, all, having no standing or authority since 1984) are all null and void and must be presented before, and re-heard by, a jury only - WITHOUT a judge present . Such jury cannot use any rules of civil or criminal procedure, to decide such verdicts, as there are no such rules since the repeal of Article 8.  No legal supreme court has met and established any rules since that time. Also, rules are not law. Any rules made by a supreme court only apply to the officers of the courts (which, at this time, do not legally exist) and do not, and cannot apply to the people.-  


If a government is prohibited, as a matter of law, from determining “when” a trial may be held, can it determine “where” it may be held?

If a government is prohibited, as a matter of law, from determining “when” and “where” a trial may be held, can it determine “how” it may be held?

If a government is prohibited, as a matter of law, from determining “when,” “where,” and “how” a trial may be held, can it hold a trial?

If a government cannot hold a trial, does it have the right to pass any law which, if broken, would require a trial to be held  - that it can never, legally, hold?

The Answer To Each Of The Above Questions is NO.