This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
It is well settled that an “officer” or “public officer,” meaning a person who lawfully and legally occupies a “public office,” must be either elected, appointed or commissioned. Employees cannot be made officers “by virtue of their employment.” Even if they could, such employment must be performed for a “governmental entity.” Idaho Code 59 §703(9) declares, “’Public office’” means any position in which the normal and usual duties are conducted on behalf of a governmental entity.” The Clearfield Doctrine is explicit. The corporation registered and known as THE CITY OF BOISE CITY is listed as a ”CORPORATION” in the IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE’S BUSINESS ENTITY database and is, therefore, in fact and in law, “an entity entirely separate from government.” Notwithstanding any other Idaho Code section that is also superseded by Federal law, the alleged officers are NOT employees of a “governmental entity.” “ . . . the government descended to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen . . . For the purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.” Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 22 U.S. 904, U.S. v. Erie RR Co., 106 U.S. 327; Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. 318 U.S. 363 (1943). “When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation.” U.S. v. Burr. 309 U.S. 22; See 22 U.S.C.A. 286e. Bank of U.S. v. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et. Seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103. An officer is defined as “a person appointed or elected to a position of responsibility or authority in government or a private organization.” Random House Webster’s Dictionary of the Law, p. 307. To assert, as the Idaho Code does, that, in contradiction to Federal law below, an employee becomes an officer by virtue of his employment for a governmental entity is as absurd as the notion that the “CITY OF BOISE CITY” is a “governmental entity.” These “persons,” specifically, [Names of employees (alleged officers) and their badge numbers or corporate title] are merely employees of the above-named CORPORATION, as it is registered with the STATE OF IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE’S “BUSINESS ENTITY” database, “organizational ID C117940;” but, they are NOT officers of the government with authority to pursue, detain or arrest, or to perform any of the duties of an officer of a governmental entity.
Memorandum of Law – Employee NOT Officer – Michael James Anthony - Page 1
Article VI.Page 2 . and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution.S.” also referred to as “State legislative power. not the same.e.’” “Distinguished” means an officer and an employee are different. they are not “matters within its purview.” State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict. Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause: “The Constitution.” Obviously there is a conflict between the Idaho Code (state law) bestowing the title of officer upon employees and the clear and unambiguous distinction between an officer and an employee according to federal law. they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. and in light of those characteristics.S. From the very nature of their judicial duties. condemnations and sanctions against the self-determining actions of nationals). the Law constitutes a conclusive presumption as to the characteristics required of an officer: “The argument is that provision is here made for the appointment of all officers . Thus. 508. emoluments and duties. the supreme Court held that “the term ‘officer’ embraces the idea of tenure. the latter being continuous and permanent and not occasional or temporary..” The law of the land says that employees are NOT officers.” Such police power depends upon the definition and lawful/legal “characteristics” of an “officer” as distinguished from an “employee.” In U. 99 U. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State. Germaine. duration. and that defendant..” is “subject only to the constraints of the Constitution and the supremacy of federal law [i. 508] in matters within its purview. laws. as far as the exercise of State police/legislative power are concerned (in terms of allegations. and an employee can NOT be an officer. judgments.The governing doctrine here is defined in the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution.S.” Furthermore. it is distinguished from ‘employee.” but they are “beyond the effective reach of legal action. in their official and not merely in their private capacities. not being appointed in either of the modes here mentioned. The following case law supersedes the Idaho Code regarding the true nature and definition of “officer. is Memorandum of Law – Employee NOT Officer – Michael James Anthony . Their obligation “is imperative upon the state judges.. Furthermore it is axiomatic that “police power. v. but according to the laws and treaties of the United States—‘the supreme law of the land’. 99 U.
. employees. without thereby becoming its officers.” Barron’s Law Dictionary. 360.” Barron’s. Are the alleged officers public or private? If they are public. employment at will applies to the above-mentioned employees (alleged officers).not an officer. “to establish that applicants or incumbents either employed by the Government or working for the Government under contract.” By definition.Page 3 . p. as nine-tenths of the persons rendering service to the government undoubtedly are. 331. p.” And if a public trust is involved. Third Edition.” Barron’s. and refers to the fact that lawful officers have “a statutory right of certain civil servants … to retain their positions permanently. 2d 359. or agents.] Do the above-named employees (alleged officers) have the right to “hold their positions permanently” or do they have the “right to work..” If they are private. an officer is “a person invested with the authority of a particular … office. 489. Tenure is “the right to hold.” under which they hold their positions according to the doctrine of “employment at will?” What is the “duration” of their alleged “office?” There is none. where is their required “Standard Form” SF-85P Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions? The purpose of the form is. again. Emoluments are the Memorandum of Law – Employee NOT Officer – Michael James Anthony . describe by what lawful process they were “invested with a public trust. what is the name of the private organization of which the private officers are members.W.” 39 N. though he may be an agent or employee working for the government and paid by it. subject to removal [only] for adequate cause . 331. What is the name of the alleged “particular office” occupied by the above-named “persons?” “An officer may be either public or private in that the office he occupies may or may not be invested with a public trust. are suitable for the job and/or eligible for a public trust or sensitive position. [emphasis added. p.
the posterity of we. therefore. p. “compensation received by virtue of holding an office or having employment (usually in the form of wages or fees). "a clause in the U. It also may be a crime to flash a fake police badge. and. In fact.” therefore.” Boise Police employees do work under a contract. v.” What are the Penalties for Impersonating a Police Officer? Memorandum of Law – Employee NOT Officer – Michael James Anthony . but their duties are occasional.S. employment.” Captions and letterheads declare the CITY OF BOISE. gain. the people.” The private police organization hired by the CITY OF BOISE CITY is present on the internet as “www. Therefore.S. Government Officers do NOT work under a “Contract.org. a federal officer or employee. many states also consider it a crime to use equipment used by law enforcement officers. it is undisputed that there are times when the employees alleged to be officers are considered to be “off duty. clearly the nomenclature for a private organization. 2d 1151. or labor.” State Nationals. Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer. and.” What profits and perquisites are derived from the alleged office of the above-named employees (alleged officers)? Are the alleged “duties” of the above-named persons “permanent and continuous” as defined in U.” as displayed on the bumpers of their police cars.“profit derived from office …” See 508 P. Barron’s. any actions or charges made. such as red and blue flashing lights. Germaine above? No. advantage.” “It is a crime to falsely impersonate a police officer. according to their schedules and to their “duty roster. are not subject to agency regulations except by consent or by licensure.boisepolice. compensation. Furthermore. or any other public official.Page 4 . in fact and at law. proceedings initiated or documents put forth by these CITY employees constitute “impersonating an officer. governmental entities must use the internet suffix “. the CITY OF BOISE CITY is NOT a governmental entity. sovereigns without subjects. Although the laws vary from state to states.gov. a non-existent entity. constitution prevents sitting legislators from receiving emoluments from their own votes" “The profit arising from office. fees. they are not Government Officers. 157.” At best these “persons” are “agents” of the agency named “CITY OF BOISE CITY. they are not permanent and continuous. perquisites. as an “agency. or salary. temporary and intermittent.
or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years. impersonating a police officer may be considered either a felony or a misdemeanor.Depending on state law. . . Officer or employee of the United States Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department. and acts as such. document. Punishments for impersonating a police officer include: • • • • Imprisonment up to five years (sometimes more) Fines (usually $1000 or more) Probation Permanent criminal record Also see 18 USC § 912. Memorandum of Law – Employee NOT Officer – Michael James Anthony .Page 5 . Conclusion You may freely form your own . agency or officer thereof. or both. or thing of value. paper.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.