Memorandum of the Law Employee NOT Officer

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 STATES 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 Notwithstanding any other Idaho Code section that is also superseded by Federal law, the alleged officers are NOT employees of a governmental entity.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 Websters 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 STATES 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

The governing doctrine here is defined in the Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution, Article VI, Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause: The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United Statesthe supreme law of the land. 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. 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. The following case law supersedes the Idaho Code regarding the true nature and definition of officer. In U.S. v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508, the supreme Court held that the term officer embraces the idea of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties, the latter being continuous and permanent and not occasional or temporary, and in light of those characteristics, it is distinguished from employee. Distinguished means an officer and an employee are different, not the same, and an employee can NOT be an officer. Furthermore it is axiomatic that police power, also referred to as State legislative power, is subject only to the constraints of the Constitution and the supremacy of federal law [i.e., 99 U.S. 508] in matters within its purview. Such police power depends upon the definition and lawful/legal characteristics of an officer as distinguished from an employee. Furthermore, as far as the exercise of State police/legislative power are concerned (in terms of allegations, judgments, condemnations and sanctions against the self-determining actions of nationals), they are not matters within its purview, but they are beyond the effective reach of legal action. The law of the land says that employees are NOT officers. Thus, 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 ... and that defendant, not being appointed in either of the modes here mentioned, is
Memorandum of Law Employee NOT Officer Michael James Anthony - Page 2

not an officer, though he may be an agent or employee working for the government and paid by it, as nine-tenths of the persons rendering service to the government undoubtedly are, without thereby becoming its officers. By definition, an officer is a person invested with the authority of a particular office. Barrons Law Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 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. Barrons, p. 331. Are the alleged officers public or private? If they are public, describe by what lawful process they were invested with a public trust. And if a public trust is involved, where is their required Standard Form SF-85P Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions? The purpose of the form is, to establish that applicants or incumbents either employed by the Government or working for the Government under contract, are suitable for the job and/or eligible for a public trust or sensitive position. If they are private, what is the name of the private organization of which the private officers are members, employees, or agents. Tenure is the right to hold, 39 N.W. 2d 359, 360, and refers to the fact that lawful officers have a statutory right of certain civil servants to retain their positions permanently, subject to removal [only] for adequate cause ... Barrons, p. 489. [emphasis added.] Do the above-named employees (alleged officers) have the right to hold their positions permanently or do they have the right to work, 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; again, employment at will applies to the above-mentioned employees (alleged officers). Emoluments are the
Memorandum of Law Employee NOT Officer Michael James Anthony - Page 3

profit derived from office See 508 P. 2d 1151. Barrons, p. 157. and, compensation received by virtue of holding an office or having employment (usually in the form of wages or fees); "a clause in the U.S. constitution prevents sitting legislators from receiving emoluments from their own votes" The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; gain; compensation; advantage; perquisites, fees, or salary. 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.S. v. Germaine above? No. In fact, it is undisputed that there are times when the employees alleged to be officers are considered to be off duty, therefore, they are not permanent and continuous, but their duties are occasional, temporary and intermittent, according to their schedules and to their duty roster. Captions and letterheads declare the CITY OF BOISE, a non-existent entity, as an agency. At best these persons are agents of the agency named CITY OF BOISE CITY. State Nationals, sovereigns without subjects, the posterity of we, the people, are not subject to agency regulations except by consent or by licensure. Government Officers do NOT work under a Contract. Boise Police employees do work under a contract, therefore, they are not Government Officers. Furthermore, governmental entities must use the internet suffix .gov. The private police organization hired by the CITY OF BOISE CITY is present on the internet as www.boisepolice.org. as displayed on the bumpers of their police cars, clearly the nomenclature for a private organization; and, in fact and at law, the CITY OF BOISE CITY is NOT a governmental entity. Therefore, any actions or charges made, proceedings initiated or documents put forth by these CITY employees constitute impersonating an officer. It is a crime to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official. Although the laws vary from state to states, many states also consider it a crime to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as red and blue flashing lights. It also may be a crime to flash a fake police badge. Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer. What are the Penalties for Impersonating a Police Officer?
Memorandum of Law Employee NOT Officer Michael James Anthony - Page 4

Depending on state law, impersonating a police officer may be considered either a felony or a misdemeanor. 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. 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, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Conclusion
You may freely form your own . . .

Memorandum of Law Employee NOT Officer Michael James Anthony - Page 5