Mr. Larry Saccato, Sui Juris

Mr. Larry Saccato, Sui Juris

c/o 1224 N.E. Walnut #257

Roseburg 97470

Oregon, USA

In Propria Persona

All Rights Reserved

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

State ex rel. NORM SMITH et al., ) Appeal No. A161069

Relators-Respondents, )

v. )

) Douglas County Circuit Court

PATRICIA HITT, in her official ) No. 15CV24992

capacity as Douglas County Clerk,)

Defendant-Respondent, )

and )

)

JOHN PARKER, )

Intervenor- and )

Defendant-Appellant. )

)

------)

) FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO

People of Douglas County ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE

ex rel. ) TO INTERVENE:

Larry Saccato, )

Applicants. ) Article IV, Section 4;

) Article VI, Clause 2; and,

) Tenth Amendment:

______) U.S. Constitution.

Come now the People of Douglas County ex relatione Larry Saccato (hereinafter "Applicants") to file this FIRST SUPPLEMENT to their APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, and to provide formal Notice to all interested Parties of same, for all of the meritorious reasons itemized as follows:

1. Applicants begin this FIRST SUPPLEMENT by quoting a recent summary of a Princeton University study which concluded that America has devolved from a Constitutional Republic to a corrupt oligarchy. On January 13, 2016, at on the Internet, that study was summarized as follows:

A groundbreaking study from Princeton University is causing a lot of controversy, but its findings are undeniable.

The university study explains that U.S. democracy is pure fiction. That is, the researchers explain, it simply does not exist.

The scholars behind the study asked the question: “[w]ho really rules?”

Researchers Martin Gilens along with Benjamin I. Pageconcludedthat over the past few decades in particular, the U.S. political system has gradually changed in a way that has warped the Democratic Republic into a nearly pure oligarchy, where the elite 1% rule with almost total influence and control over the government and even police state apparatus.

The researchers drew data from over 1,800 different policy initiatives dating from 1981 to 2002. They concluded that wealthy, well-connected families are the ones who steer the direction of nearly everything politically in the United States.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they explain, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” [bold emphasis added]

Source:

The official Abstract of that study is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully here.

1. One of the means by which this oligarchy has aggrandized power to itself, at least since the American Civil War, is the well entrenched habit of enacting federal municipal law which is made to appear as if it werenational in scope. Two simple examples serve to illustrate the widespread deceptions that result from these legislative bad habits by the Congress of the United States.
2. First, consider the definition of “individual” that is found in the federal Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2):

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence ....

Consider how much clearer that definition becomes when we substitute “federal citizen” for “citizen of the United States”, as follows:

(2) the term “individual” means a federal citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence ....

1. Second, consider the federal Regulation at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) which implements Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (cf. 26 U.S.C. 1):

(b) In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

Likewise, consider how much clearer that Regulation becomes when we substitute “federal citizens” for “citizens of the United States”:

(b) In general, all federal citizens, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

1. The federal Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) was enacted by Congress expressly for the District of Columbia at 77 Stat. 630, December 30, 1963:

... That the Uniform Commercial Code is enacted as Subtitle I of Title 28 of the District of Columbia Code ....

1. Numerous other examples of federal municipal law exist, many of which are not as easily identified as such. The federal civil statute at 42 U.S.C. 1983 comes to mind. Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905), held that only federal citizens have standing to invoke section 1983; whereas State Citizens do not have standing to invoke that section.
2. In comparison, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that 42 U.S.C. 1985 implements the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. Wash. 1980). As such, section 1985 is federal national law which can be invoked by all Americans, not federal municipal law.
3. Arguably, the most notorious examples of federal municipal law were exposed by the Omnibus Acts, which itemized all of the “special definitions of ‘State’” which needed to be amended when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union. The only explanation that makes any sense is that each Territory was considered a “federal state” before it was admitted to the Union; and, after admission to the Union, each was no longer a “federal state” but each had become a Union State.
4. A “special definition of ‘State’” was enacted by Congress without making it perfectly clear that each such definition referred to a geographic area that was not within any of the 50 States of the Union. The “special definition of ‘State’” at section 3121(e) of the Internal Revenue Code is a prime example of such deliberate deception:

The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

A very famous letter from Congresswoman Barbara B. Kennelly to Mr. John Randall, dated January 24, 1996, quotes “legal experts” in the federal offices of the Legislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service who clarified that definition as follows:

The term state in 26 U.S. Code 3121 (e) specifically includes only the named U.S. territories and possessions of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

1. Applicants now submit for the careful deliberation of this honorable Court the following justiciable propositions:

(a)The population of federal citizens who inhabit the 50 States of the Union are now treated as an absolute legislative democracy that is subject to federal municipal laws;

(b)The population of State Citizens who inhabit the 50 States of the Union are properly treated as a Constitutional Republic that is not subject to federal municipal laws;

(c)Insofar as voting and jury service are conditioned upon allegiance to the former legislative democracy, State Citizens who are not also federal citizens -- by Right of Election --are thereby deprived of Equal Protection of the Laws; and,

(d)In particular, the Guarantee Clause is blatantly violated insofar as the entire American political system has devolved from a Constitutional Republic, to an absolute legislative democracy, and now to a demonstrably corrupt oligarchy.

1. These propositions raise matters of Fundamental Right which justify scrutiny of the pernicious effects which have resulted from patterns of gross negligence by the Congress of the United States.
2. The Acts of Admission of all 50 States must now be examined to determine if Congress did, or did not, find each State Constitution to be republican in its form of government. See, for example, the Act for the Admission of the State of California into the Union, Preamble, 9 Stat. 452-453, Sept. 9, 1850; for Oregon’s, see 11 Stat. 383-384.
3. Moreover, all subsequent amendments to each State Constitution must also be examined to determine if Congress did, or did not, find each amendment to be republican in its form of government.
4. Applicants argue that the corrupt oligarchy under which the entire nation now suffers should begin to unravel by identifying a pattern of constitutional changes which were never approved by Congress, and which combined to steer the Ship of State on a course intended to destroy our Constitutional Republic in stepwise fashion. This Court should begin that lengthy process by granting Applicants leave to intervene and thereby to challenge the meaning of “elector” as defined in the current Oregon State Constitution.
5. Applicants support the Douglas County term limit that is at issue in this case. Nevertheless, this Court should recognize the actual damages done to Relator Larry Saccato, and others like him, insofar as they were barred from voting on the original term limit initiative.

REMEDY REQUESTED

All premises having been duly considered, Applicants respectfullypetition this honorable Court of Appeals for leave to intervene for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of Article VI,Section 8, and Article II, Section 2, in the current Oregon State Constitution: taken together, both provisions violate the Supremacy Clause, the Guarantee Clause, and the Tenth Amendment in the Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully amended.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Lawrence J. Saccato, Relator on behalf of the People of Douglas County, Oregon, caused the following pleading:

FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE:

Article IV, Section 4; Article VI, Clause 2; and

Tenth Amendment: U.S. Constitution

to be served via first class U.S. Mail, with sufficient postage affixed, upon the following recipients:

Appellate Court Administrator (3X)

Appellate Court Records Section

1163 State Street

Salem 97301-2563

Oregon, USA

Charles F. Lee, P.C.

P.O. Box 486

Roseburg 97470

Oregon, USA

Harrang Long Gary Rudnick, P.C.

360 East Tenth Avenue, Suite 300

Eugene 97401

Oregon, USA

James L. Buchal

3425 S.E. Yamhill #100

Portland 97214

Oregon, USA

Dated: February 9, 2016 A.D.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Lawrence J. Saccato

Lawrence J. Saccato, Sui Juris

Citizen of Oregon

(expressly not a federal citizen)

All Rights Reserved

Exhibit “A”:

Testing Theories of American Politics:

Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

MartinGilens and Benjamin I.Page

Abstract

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics -- which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism -- offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Martin Gilens is Professor of Politics at Princeton University (). His research examines representation, public opinion, and mass media, especially in relation to inequality and public policy. Professor Gilens is the author of Affluence & Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America (2012, Princeton University Press). Benjamin I. Page is Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University (). His research interests include public opinion, policy making, the mass media, and U.S. foreign policy. He is currently engaged in a large collaborative project to study Economically Successful Americans and the Common Good. For helpful comments the authors are indebted to Larry Bartels and Jeff Isaac, to the anonymous reviewers from Perspectives on Politics, and to seminar participants at Harvard University and the University of Rochester.

Source:

Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12, pp 564-581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.

First Supplement to Application for Leave to Intervene: Page 1of 8