The 530D Report Explained

 

According to law a 28 U.S.C. 530d report must be written by the Attorney General and sent to Congress if any of the following occur:

 

1.      Any member of the DOJ (i.e., Ms. Utiger) establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing a law (such as Article V of  the law of the Constitution) (1);

2.      Any member of DOJ (i.e., Ms. Utiger acting under instructions of her clients) establishes a policy to refrain from adhering to, enforcing, applying or complying with, any standing rule of decision (binding upon courts of, or inferior to those, of that jurisdiction) established by a final decision of any court of, or superior to those of, that jurisdiction, respecting the interpretation, construction, or application of the Constitution (2);

3.      Determines to contest affirmatively the constitutionality of any provision of the Constitution (3);

4.      Determines to refrain from defending the constitutionality of any law (such as the law of the Constitution) or not to appeal a ruling affecting the constitutionality of such provision (4).

 

 

Notes

 

1. Ms. Utiger chose not to defend the constitutionality of Article V and therefore by default established a DOJ policy not to enforce that clause of the Constitution on the members of Congress.

  

2. As the Coleman decision specifies any decision by a federal court on the amendatory process is an advisory opinion, any court opinion rendered after Coleman based on the Coleman opinion cannot be a binding court ruling as it is only an advisory opinion, that is a court opinion which has no weight or force of law whatsoever. Any binding decision must therefore be based on Supreme Court rulings (Dodge v Woolsey, Hawke v Smith, Dillon v Gloss, United States v Sprague ) made prior to Coleman all which state Congress must call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the states apply for a convention call. The Coleman ruling did not overturn these earlier rulings. The Coleman decision did not even discuss the Article V Convention. While Judge Coughenour in his opinion in Walker v United States, ignored these rulings, he did not state anywhere that he was nullifying them. Thus, these “missing” Supreme Court rulings which are not advisory opinions remain in effect and as they merely restate the words of Article V carry the full weight and force of law, specifically the law of the Constitution itself. As an advisory opinion has no weight or force of law whatsoever, clearly it cannot trump the law of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Thus, neither Coleman nor the Walker lawsuits altered in any way the “peremptory” requirement of Article V on Congress to call an Article V Convention.
   

3. Ms. Utiger chose to assert Mr. Walker lacked standing rather than to assert his facts presented were untrue and thus presented an affirmative defense or affirmatively.

  

4. Ms. Utiger did not appeal a ruling “affecting” the constitutionality of that provision. Clearly, where the law of the Constitution was altered from “peremptory” to optional meaning the government could ignore it, this affected the constitutionality of Article V.