Maxim of Law 46d. Where the law prescribes a form, the nonobservance of it is fatal to the proceeding, and the whole becomes a nullity. Best; Ev. Introd. s. 59.*
Maxim of Law 25b- Things bad [or corrupted] in principle at the commencement improves not by lapse of time [does not achieve a good end.] Broom, Max. 178; 4 Coke, 2.°
Maxim of Law 25f. Corruption is always the forerunner of despotism. Mequire v. Corwine, 11 Otto (101 U.S 108, 111-12.*
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491- "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."]
Affiant States: Arizona state counties as bodies politic, and corporate entities have entered into unconstitutional contracts with corporations (e.g ES&S, Dominion, Unisyn, ProV&V, SLI Compliance, ERIC. Runbeck) that call for the performance of services and the implementation of technology that interferes with the Peoples process of elections. These contracts, by virtue of what these companies are doing, prevent the People from observing the actual vote count, violate voter privacy, and hinder transparency in the entire voting process.
The Peoples elections have, effectively, been handed over to the corporations to be managed privately, with proprietary protections afforded, so that their accountability to the People has been usurped and is a trespass.
The process of holding elections is to be controlled by, and for, the benefit of the People, with no interference from any entity or power. Therefore, contractual arrangements between any Arizona governmental body and corporations, which interferes with the Peoples right of suffrage, is a violation of the constitutional rights of the People of Arizona;
Two Treatises of Government, John Locke, Chapter XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government (212) John Locke, whose writings directed the United States Constitution, stated that the existence of a Political Society indicates an agreement, "every one has with the rest to incorporate, act as one body, and so be one distinct Commonwealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this Union is dissolved, is the Inroad of Foreign Force making a Conquest upon them."
Affiant States: The "inroad of a Foreign Force" in the form of unlawful statutes, private corporations, private agreements to subvert the Constitutional rights of the People's suffrage, and more, have now led to an obvious conclusion. Those involved in such activities are participating knowingly in actions, as Foreign Forces, attempting to subvert or dissolve the People's government as we know it to be:
LAWS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Affiant states: The Federal ("Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002]. as adopted by the Arizona State Legislature, directly violates, and interferes with, the People's rights to their suffrage as indicated in the United States and State Constitutions. No federal government programs, or corporations intended to "oversee," or interfere with, the People's election processes, may become state law. No law may be enacted by the legislature that allows any such interference. Such laws and rules are a direct violation of the People's guaranteed right of suffrage provided in the Arizona Constitution Article 2 Section 21 and Article 7 Section 1 and Section 7. Any federal or state law. which is repugnant to the State Constitution, may not be codified into law and is an interference with state and local election processes;
Maxim of Law 11a- A delegated power cannot be again delegated. 2 Inst. 597; Black's, 2d. 347: 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1300. A deputy cannot have (or appoint) a deputy. Story.Ag. s. 13; 9 Coke, 77; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1936.*
Maxim of Law 11f- Power can never be delegated which the authority said to delegate never possessed itself. NJ. Steam Co. v. Merch Bank, 6 How. (47 U.S 344, 407.*
Maxim of Law 7f- What is done without consideration or reflection, upon better consideration we should revoke or undo. Jenk. Cent. 116.*
Affiant States: The United States Supreme Court has affirmed that any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
["Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 180 "It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally. but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged")
Affiant States: Arizona state legislators have failed to maintain the mandatory constitutional provisions which protect the perpetuity of the People's electoral process. The People delegated power to the county Boards of Supervisors in handling the People's method of elections. Therefore, it is necessary for the Boards of Supervisors to protect and maintain the People's right of suffrage;
Maxim of Law 83f- That which necessity compels, it justifies. Hale, P.C. 54.*
REMEDY FOR BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS