Time: Wed Jul 16 05:59:13 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA27130 for [address in tool bar]; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:58:50 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA09456; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:57:22 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 05:56:58 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Texas Constitutional Convention Explained (fwd) <snip> > >Subject: Texas Constitutional Convention Explained > >Well, I thought that I was finished with this subject but Wes >Burnett is so clear in his recent postings that I feel obligated >to repost his statements to a number of mailing lists. All of the >following quotes were posted today, 7/15/97, on the Libertarian >Party of Texas mailing list (LPTexas@io.com) by Wes Burnett, >previous moderator of the Texas Constitutional Convention >Coordinating Committee and current "delegate" to the Texas >Constitutional Convention. (BU) > > > >>>>> >>May I suggest that a new constitution (and government) for Texas >>could be properly and lawfully enacted with only ten percent of >>the people of Texas choosing to vote and only fifty-one percent of >>the ten percent voting in favor of enactment? That is, the new >>constitution would be lawfully enacted *provided* the sponsors of >>the election could show that ESSENTIALLY ALL of the people of >>Texas had been *notified* of the election and that ESSENTIALLY ALL >>of the people of Texas had the *opportunity* to vote. (BU) > >Mr Utterback speaks great truth in the above statement... except for the >provision that "ALL" the people be notified. (WB) > ><<<< > > > >Apparently in Wes's zeal to gain Texas independence it is lawful >for .051 of the people of Texas to make a decision for all of the >people when not all of the people were aware the election was >being held. Thank you, Wes, for making my point. (BU) > > > >>>>> >The Texas Constitutional Convention Coordinating Committee, of which I >was moderator, did in fact perform due notice for this convention above >the minimum requirements of state law. We paid in advance for the >publishing of public notice in 283 Texas newspapers... the fact that >"nobody" read them is not an issue which we are able to control... (WB) ><<<< > > > >Well said, Wes. This was how you accomplished what you call "due >notice", by publishing classified ads which nobody read. (BU) > > > >>>>> >>Both Wes and Robert are >>claiming that they notified the people of Texas about the >>convention, yet virtually nobody in Texas knows about it. >(BU) > >Mr Utterback has misquoted both Mr Kesterson and myself... we never >claimed that we notified the people of Texas about the convention... we >do claim, and are able to substantiate with evidence, that we paid for >public notices in 283 Texas newspapers (published two consecutive weeks); >sent letters and flyers to all 254 county clerks seeking their assistance >in notifying their constituents; issued a news release by fax to more >than 500 Texas news media outlets; paid for a telephone voice mail >service for citizens to call for information about how to become a >delegate and paid for a fax-on-demand service through which citizens >could get copies of pertinent documents related to the convention. All of >our advance notification exceeded the minimum requirements stated by >Texas statute. (WB) > ><<<< > > > >Wes states clearly above that his concept of "due notice" does not >include notification of the people of Texas. This is the same >theme that was evident before when the RT so called "government" >was "established" by the vote of a small group of people in a >country store in Bulverde, Texas; now they claim that government >is, by the authority of the people of Texas, the only lawful >government of Texas. This is the RT mindset of "we'll just do the >best we can and call it lawful" and "the end justifies the means". >(BU) > >One might ask which Texas statute gives the "requirements" >necessary for the people of Texas to take action to alter, reform, >or abolish their government. The recognition of that right in >Article I of the Texas Constitution is reserved to the people of >Texas, outside the structure of any existing government or >statute. All it requires is that the people of Texas make a >decision - and the minimum requirement for that is that the whole >people of Texas be aware of the question, the whole people of >Texas have the opportunity to vote on the question, and a majority >of those who choose to vote make the decision. Having .051 of the >people make a decision while the vast majority are unaware of the >question has no lawful effect. (BU) > >Incidentally, when I write "RT" it means more than just the >so-called "RT provisional government". It means the entire group >of Texas independence (Republic of Texas) activists of which the >two remaining RT "governments" are only a subset. It is my >contention that this RT group shares the mindset of seeking a >"quick fix" for Texas independence, whether or not such "fix" may >be lawful. It is my further observation that the RT group is >either unable or unwilling, or both, to commit to the hard work >necessary to lawfully restore limited, Constitutional government >with Liberty and Justice for all to our beloved Republic. (BU) > > > >>>>> >>Before Wes has a stroke, let me clarify that I understand that he >>has no official position in Lowe's RT "government" #2. He has >>often criticized actions of that government but he has also >>published more written words than anyone else in support of the >>claimed "validity" of the RT "government". (BU) > >I am pleased to see that Mr Utterback understands my position, but this >has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutional convention... (WB) ><<<< > > > >Thank you for the confirmation, Wes, but how is it that you can >leave your RT mindset outside when you enter the convention? (BU) > > > >>>>> >>In the present situation we have a convention dominated by the >>same group of people who compose the unlawful RT "government" #2. >(BU) > >Again, Mr Utterback makes an assertion that he is unable to support with >evidence... (WB) ><<<< > > > >Evidence, which was previously posted, follows: (BU) > >Elected Officers of the Texas Constitutional Convention > >Convention Chairman: Don Henson, El Paso >listowner of the RT e-mail mailing list > >Secretary: Sara Lowe, Rice >wife of Archie Lowe, "president" of RT "government" #2 > >Treasurer: Loraine Childress, Winona > >Public Relations Chairman: Robert Kesterson, Mesquite >"secretary of state" of RT "government" #2 > >Parliamentarian: Ray Wanjura, Cuero >"chief ambassador" of RT "government" #2 > >---------- > >"Delegates" of the Texas Constitutional Convention > >"Delegate": Wes Burnett, Post >co-publisher of RT Magazine > >"Delegate": Charlie Duncan, Post >co-publisher of RT Magazine > >"Delegate": Roger Erickson, Corsicana >"secretary of defense" of RT "government" #2 > >"Delegate": Archie Lowe, Rice >"president" of RT "government" #2 > >"Delegate": J. David Sanders, Abilene >"chief constable" of district 2, RT "government" #2 > >"Delegate": Robert Sudbury, Abilene >longtime RT activist > >I am unable to give evidence as to the inclusion of the remaining >twelve adult "delegates" in the RT group, but I offer for >consideration the fact that their vote was unanimous to write a >constitution for an independent nation of Texas rather than an >improved state constitution. (BU) > >My intent in posting this information is to inform the public of >what I consider to be the probability that this Texas >Constitutional Convention will hold some kind of bogus "election" >to "enact" their new constitution. By "bogus election", I mean an >election where essentially all of the adult citizens of Texas are >NOT notified and where NOT all of the same citizens have an >opportunity to vote. If this public exposure should influence the >convention to not hold an election unless they can find a way to >hold a proper and lawful election, then my efforts will have met >my goal. (BU) > >for Liberty, >Bill Utterback > >butterb@connecti.com (backup: butterb597@aol.com) > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail