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