Wednesday, October 19, 2002 AD
Main Street Plaza
Salt Lake City, Utah
What is the right thing to do concerning Main Street between South Temple and North Temple Street. It has been changed. That is indisputable. But there are matters that are in need of resolving.
- Who owns this block of main street?
- The State of Utah? Yes, the State of Utah owns the property.
- Salt Lake City? Salt Lake City forfeited any right to property because it was a racketeer influenced corrupt organization and its property was seized by the State of Utah November 28, 1997 AD, 14 days after Martial Law was declared by the governor of the State of Utah.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? This church, with all other churches in Utah, forfeited its property to the State of Utah, for engaging in racketeering activities, on November 28, 1997 AD, 14 days after Martial Law was declared by the governor of the State of Utah.
- Was there a sale of the property?
- Yes? This answer is wrong.
- No? This answer is right, Salt Lake city owned no property at the time of the purported sale.
- Maybe? This answer is incorrect, there is no maybe about it. The purported sale was void.
- Who owned the property at the time of the purported sale?
- The State of Utah? This is the right answer.
- Salt Lake City? This answer is wrong.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? This answer is wrong.
- What was offered as a tender in payment for the property?
- Gold and silver Coin? No gold or silver coin was offered or accepted, therefore there was no sale.
- Irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes or Irredeemable United States Notes? These notes were indirectly involved, but they are unconstitutional and void.
- Irredeemable bank credit? This is the correct answer. Fictitious checks drawn of fictitious accounts were used for the purported sale, which was a racketeering activity transaction which was unlawlful, unconstitutional and void.
- Was the purported sale of the property constitutional?
- Yes? This answer is incorrect.
- No? This answer is correct. The purported sale was unconstitutional and void. No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of debts. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10.
- Maybe? This answer is incorrect. There is no maybe about it.
- Is there a legal controversy filed in a court having jurisdiction over the matter?
- Yes? This answer is wrong.
- No? This answer is right. Jurisdiction over property rights is in the district court of the state of Utah, not in the federal courts. The purported sale was a racketeering activity transaction and is unlawful and void. The United States Grand Jury twice indicted the Federal Reserve Bank in this district, first on February 16, 1982 AD, and second, on July 7, 1982 AD, for issuing notes not redeemable in gold and silver coin, with intent to defraud, in violation of the constitutional law of the land. Brent D. Ward, who was accepting false securities of the United States as compensation for his serices, concealed the first true bill of indictment and filed a motion to dismiss the second indictment which was dismissed by David K. Winder, who was also receiving false securities of the United States, both were participants in the racketeering activities of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. And because of such racketeering activities there are no courts, district, appeals, or supreme that have judges who receive undiminished compensation in gold and silver coin, and therefore, are not vested with the judicial power of the United States. All of the so called judges and justices thereof are engaged in racketeering activities by using the false securities or other obligations of the United States falsely made, issued and circulated with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 USC 371, (conspiracy to defraud the United States), and 471, 472, 473 which are made a racketeering activities under 18 USC 1961. The purported members of congress and the employees thereof, and the purported president of the United States and all employees thereof, also are engaged in these racketeering activities, which includes all branches of the armed forces of the United States, which puts the control of all nuclear weapons under the control of racketeer influenced corrupt organizations.
- Maybe? This answer is wrong. There is no maybe about it.
- Do the parties named in the controversy have standing? And are essential parties all named?
- Yes? This answer is wrong. The parties named do not have standing, they are all involved in racketeering activities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a racketeer influenced corrupt organization, and its clients are likewise involved in racketeering activities and are not essential parties to the purported suit. No property changed ownership, therefore the civil rights questions are moot.
- No? This answer is right. The State of Utah is an essential party but was not named in the purported suit. Ross C. Anderson is not mayor of Salt Lake City, has no standing as a party in the purported case, and leads racketeering activities in Salt Lake City, Utah. Lawrence Rey Topham is mayor of Salt Lake City, but was not named in the suit.
- Maybe? This answer is wrong, there is no maybe about it.
Lawrence Rey Topham
Mayor - Salt Lake City
Salt Lake County Clerk
Secretary of State and
Acting Governor of the
State of Utah, and
Commander of the State
Militia with the State
Utah under Martial Law.