THE FOLLOWING IS ONE OF MANY ARGUMENTS THAT PROVE THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO BE UNLAWFUL AND IT IS WHERE ALL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS POWER IS PLEASE COME TO OUR SITE FOR MORE http://ResurrectTheRepublic.com http://americanspring.ning.com is our brand new social site.....lets build a lawful Constitutional Force that can argue properly as well as defend ........Copied from pages 596-598 from the of the UTAH LAW REVIEW (1975: 593) on Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)]. The 14th Amendment is fake. NOTE footnotes copied also so all numbers are there. Justice Ellett, in his concurring opinion, again 19 noted his belief that the fourteenth amendment is itself a nullity, being illegally ratified and adopted/ and is therefore not capable of being the vehicle by which any provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states. Furthermore, in Justice Ellett's view, the fourteenth amendment due process clause require only that the states provide a procedurally fair system, which he felt the state had satisfied in Phillips: The dissenting opinion asserts that "The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the Constitution of the United States." While this same assertion has been made by the United States Supreme Court, that court has never held that the amendment was legally adopted. I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted. But even if it be assumed that Congress, by joint resolution, could compel the then Secretary of State to declare that the amendment had been approved by three fourths of the states of the Union, still there is no question in this case of lack of due process of law. The defendants were tried in a court of competent jurisdiction under rules of state law which applied to all alike. They were given notice of the charge against them and had a fair trial wherein they were afforded the rights to counsel, to be confronted by the witnesses, to testify and to give evidence in their own behalf.20 Whatever the historical merit of the conspiracy theory of the fourteenth amendment,21 the time has long since passed that such a theory can be seriously entertained for purposes of declaring invalid22 a cornerstone of a century's constitutional law, especially by a state court.23 In some circumstances it is proper to thunder from the bench at judicial trends with which one disagrees,24 and this may be done by an inferior court toward an appellate body as well, as long as the forum recognizes that it is still bound by current and unambiguous case law of the appellate court. Arguably, Justice Ellett was within such a parameter of permissible judicial disagreement when in Dyett v. Turner,25 he stated that: We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.26 19. Justice Ellett thoroughly explained his theory that the fourteenth amendment is a nullity in Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968). In Dyett, the Utah Supreme Court rejected a habeas corpus petition and held that the defendant had "knowingly and intelligently" waived the right to assistance of counsel, which was a right protected under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Ellett challenged the validity of the fourteenth amendment : http://www.spreaker.com/user/resurrecttherepublic/forget-poison-fruit-we-give-u-the-tree

• published: 24 Feb 2014
• views: 8