Ordinances Not Laws

• Definitions.............................................................................................................7
  • Clean Hands Doctrine
  • Criminal Voyeurism
  • Invasion of Privacy
  • Tyranny
  • Vested Interest
• Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41
  • (b) (7)
• Colorado Constitution...........................................................................................8, 9
  • Article II, Section 3 Inalienable Rights
  • Article II, Section 7 Security of Person and Property – Searches, Seizures, Warrants
  • Article II, Section 25 Due Process of Law
  • Article XXIX, Section 1 Purpose and Findings
  • Article XXIX, Section 2 Definitions
• Colorado Revised Statutes(CRS).............................................................................10, 11, 12
  • 13-21-1403 - Civil action – definitions
  • 16-3-304 - Search warrants- contents
  • 18-1-603 - Complicity.
  • 18-2-201 - Conspiracy
  • 18-3-207 - Criminal extortion - aggravated extortion
  • 18-3-602 - Stalking - penalty - definitions - Vonnie’s law
  • 18-9-111 - Harassment.

• US Constitution.....................................................................................................13
  • Article Six, Clause 2
  • Amendment IV
  • Amendment VI
  • Bill of Rights, Article Nine:
• United States Code (USC)......................................................................................14
  • 18 USC 241 - Conspiracy against rights
  • 18 USC 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
  • 18 USC 2381 - Treason
• American Jurisprudence.........................................................................................15
  • Book 16, Second edition, Section 97
  • Book 16, Second edition, Section. 177
  • Book 16, Second edition, Section 256

All cited laws, relevant Constitutional references, and definitions, listed above, are below the body of this document.

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute, including city code, ordinance, or regulation, passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.

Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The word Law is a generic term that covers all acts, subordinates legislation, regulations, and ordinances. Laws are meant to maintain the public order. They are meant to deter people from engaging in criminal behaviors and, in general, help protect the people.

Those who enforce invalid laws are acting contrary to the US Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and other valid laws. They are worse than any criminal, they rely on the respect the gun, badge, and uniform used to enjoy, immunity clauses, which prevent justice for their victims, and abuse the power of their position whenever possible.

If these conditions continue, society will become a power struggle between the people and those granted the authority to violate the very laws they have been entrusted to enforce. We, as a nation, are seeing this happen through out the united States.

First I want to make it clear – I understand the reasoning behind most oppressive and invalid city codes, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. However, the blatant and systematic violations of the US Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, Colorado Revised Statutes, federal laws, and the innate rights of the residents is not acceptable.

The Annual Budget, as of the year 2020, shows revenues, bolstering the city coffers, directly from the illegal activity described in this document. Fines and Forfeitures are imposed by the City’s Municipal Court on persons found to be in violation of the invalid City codes, ordinances, regulations, and or statutes, and subjected to a fine.

Year	Amount ($)	Change from Previous Year
2017 Actual	1,986,460
2018 Actual	2,170,103	9.24%
2019 Estimate	2,250,269	3.69%
2020 Adopted	2,290,500	1.79%

The poorest people in Pueblo are charged fines and fees they can ill afford to pay. Police officers and code enforcement officers commit the crime of extortion when they threaten the home owner with loss of property, income, and even jail time if they attempt to exercise their rights, protected by Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 3, US Constitution Amendments 4, 5, 6, 14, and CRS 18-3-207.

To be true to my beliefs: nobody should complain unless they can provide a viable alternative to the current system. Which ultimately pushes lower income property owners into homelessness. Which cascades into even more problems for the city, residents, and already strained resources meant to assist the homeless.

My proposed solution requires code enforcement officers to work with property owners to help them clean up their properties without the need for involving the court, fines they can't pay, and ultimately property taxes that will ensure the city becomes the proud owner of an 'abated' property.

Negotiate an acceptable price for the 'clean up' crew and dump fees, with the city dump fee discount. Perhaps a couple hours a month, with no new trash or weeds being added to the property. Some clean ups may take months to complete depending on the income of the property owner.

The code enforcement department would be responsible for scheduling, with the property owner, which properties will be worked on and when. This system would at least, in part, reimburse the city for expenses incurred while actually helping residents clean up their properties, which would greatly benefit the city.

However, it appears the goal of the city is to over tax poor people to the point the city can justify illegally taking possession of properties! In violation of 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Article II, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution, the Fourth and Sixth Amendments of the US Constitution.(Why the 6th A? there is NO due process when enforcing invalid laws!)

As I sat listening to the public hearings on September 16, 2020, in Pueblo, CO, I learned why people think being offended is actionable. That is what our defunct justice system is teaching them. They get offended by something that is NONE of their business, report it, and watch the property owner struggle with fines and fees they can't afford, even if they are just as guilty as the person they reported.

It has become quite obvious the people, who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, are the ones who are perverting it to fit their agenda, by generating revenue through systematic abuse of power, placing themselves above the laws, codes, regulations, statutes, and ordinances they enforce on residents because someone was offended by the possessions stored on the private property of another. Specifically US Constitution Amendment 4, and Colorado Constitution Section 3, Section 7, and Section 25. When invalid laws, ordinances, regulations, codes, or statues are being enforced there is no proper or legal due process of law.

The 'dog and pony' show appeared to be a reiteration of the inappropriate Municipal court charges that created the foundation to justify the cost of abatement, which is nothing more than a socially acceptable term for theft under color of law. This whole system is designed to create a conspiracy, in violation of CRS 18-2-201, against the rights of citizens.

Code enforcement employees are nothing more than city government puppets enforcing invalid ordinances, codes, regulations, statutes, or laws on the residents. Telling the resident what property they can and cannot own and where and how they can store it! See Definition: Tyranny, Colorado Constitution Section 3, US Constitution Amendment 4, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, and 18 USC 2381.

If the alleged search warrants used for the abatement process on the other properties was anything like the one I received, it is not a legal valid search warrant according to CRS 16-3-304; which means there was no legal or proper due process of law, the removal of property  from my property was blatant theft, under the color of law. I suspect it is the same for all the properties. Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41 (b) (7)

Either the search warrant was a legal valid document and the code enforcement officer(s) willingly, knowingly, and maliciously defied a direct court order or it was not a valid search warrant – it can't be both!

The argument that it was a legal search warrant is proven fallacious when it is revealed the alleged search warrant required an inventory and safe keeping of any property seized, as directed by the judge who signed the alleged warrant, but was never done. This direct violation of an order from the court they purport to represent makes them thieves. This makes these officers FAR worse than any criminal on the street.

The invalid search warrant was nothing more than a tool used to intimidate, coerce, and threaten the property owner(s) with bodily harm and property damage if they did not comply with the unreasonable demands of the person presenting the fictitious paper.

Procedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Thus, the required elements of due process are those that minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a government proposes to deprive them of protected interests.

A person commits the crime of extortion, CRS 18-3-207, when, in order to induce a person to do something against his or her will, and make a substantial threat against that person and or their property.

Threatening to forcibly remove someone and put them in jail because they are exercising their right to protect their property, Colorado Constitution Article II, section 7, is a credible threat of restraint, which would cause economic hardship, CRS 18-3-207, and the property owner could suffer bodily injury for attempting to prevent the unlawful act from being performed.

Under Colorado law, theft is defined broadly as it incorporates other crimes such as larceny, grand larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, and shoplifting. A person commits theft in Colorado when he or she, intentionally and permanently deprive anything of value of another person.

Also when a person knowingly obtains, retains or controls the item; and does so without authorization or by threat or deception. Anyone can authorize another to commit an illegal act, it doesn't make commission of that act legal! The credible threat of theft of private property and the deception of presenting an invalid search warrant is, beyond any doubt, theft under the color of law!

Colorado theft laws also apply to those who didn't actually do the taking. For example, one can commit theft by knowingly receiving stolen property or by failing to promptly return property they were only allowed to hold for a certain period of time.

The crew member who sold the tires, mentioned in the itemized list, is guilty of knowingly, willingly, and maliciously profiting from possession of stolen property, the sale of stolen property, and theft under the color of law! While the police officers and code enforcement supervisor presented a show of force to prevent the homeowner from protecting their property. See Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 3, US Constitution Amendment 4, 18 USC 241, and 18 USC 242.

A truly horrible discovery was when I realized the entire city government, including the mayor, city council, city attorney's, judges, chief of police, and police officers are all complicit in every crime mentioned in this document. See CRS 18-1-603.

The city attorney mentioned a citizens right to privacy, and claimed that taking pictures over a wooden privacy fence is 'legal' as long as the person taking the pictures is on a public right of way. This is indisputably false. Taking pictures over a privacy fence is stalking, invasion of privacy, and harassment. See CRS 18-3-602 and CRS 18-9-111

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a limited constitutional right of privacy based on a number of provisions in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. This includes a right to privacy from government* surveillance into an area where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

*This includes local, county, state and federal.

A conspiracy, see CRS 18-2-201, takes place when a protected anonymous complaint is reported to the code enforcement department of the police department. The conspiracy continues when a code enforcement officer is dispatched to the address of the complaint. This system violates Amendment 6 of the US Constitution by removing the right to question the original accuser. There is also the possibility of the complainant being guilty of the same crime they are reporting of another. See the clean hands doctrine. The admission of hearsay evidence sometimes results in depriving defendants of their right to confront opposing witnesses, as the Supreme Court observed in Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586 (1924).

Since city codes, ordinances, regulations, and statutes are NOT laws there is no due process when a person is charged for a violation in a civil or criminal court.

To add insult to injury, code enforcement officers continue to contact property owners, with every intention of alarming them by threatening them with bodily injury and/or property damage and intimidation which creates fear of property theft! See CRS 18-9-111

Definitions:

tyranny - oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

• vested interest
  • n. A right or title, as to present or future possession of an estate, that can be conveyed to another.
  • n. A fixed right granted to an employee under a pension plan.
  • n. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.

• invasion of privacy
  • noun - an encroachment upon the right to be let alone or to be free from publicity.
  • An invasion of privacy happens when anyone takes images of property without permission, or views property they do not own, have control of, or any vested interest in.

• clean hands doctrine
  • n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable since it is considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.
  • The criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover "a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning:
  • i. A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
  • ii. A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. - such as a yard enclosed by a privacy fence.

Colorado Constitution, Article II

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 7. Security of person and property searches seizures warrants. The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.

Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Article XXIX, Section 1 Purpose and Findings

(1) The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that:

(a) The conduct of public officers, members of the general assembly, local government officials, and government employees must hold the respect and confidence of the people;

(b) They shall carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the state;

(c) They shall, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated;

(d) Any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust; and

(e) To ensure propriety and to preserve public confidence, they must have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct, and of a penalty mechanism to enforce those standards.

(2) The people of the state of Colorado also find and declare that there are certain costs associated with holding public office and that to ensure the integrity of the office, such costs of a reasonable and necessary nature should be born by the state or local government.

Article XXIX, Section 2 Definitions

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Government employee" means any employee, including independent contractors, of the state executive branch, the state legislative branch, a state agency, a public institution of higher education, or any local government, except a member of the general assembly or a public officer.

(2) "Local government" means county or municipality.

(3) "Local government official" means an elected or appointed official of a local government but does not include an employee of a local government.

(4) "Person" means any individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, limited liability company, partnership, labor organization, association, political party, committee, or other legal entity.

(5) "Professional lobbyist" means any individual who engages himself or herself or is engaged by any other person for pay or for any consideration for lobbying. "Professional lobbyist" does not include any volunteer lobbyist, any state official or employee acting in his or her official capacity, except those designated as lobbyists as provided by law, any elected public official acting in his or her official capacity, or any individual who appears as counsel or advisor in an adjudicatory proceeding.

(6) "Public officer" means any elected officer, including all statewide elected officeholders, the head of any department of the executive branch, and elected and appointed members of state boards and commissions. "Public officer" does not include a member of the general assembly, a member of the judiciary, any local government official, or any member of a board, commission, council or committee who receives no compensation other than a per diem allowance or necessary and reasonable expenses.

Colorado Revised Statutes:

18-2-201. - Conspiracy.

(a)A person commits conspiracy to commit an offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate its commission, he or she agrees with another person or persons that they, or one (1) or more of them, will engage in conduct which constitutes an offense defined by the ordinances of the City or which constitutes an attempt to commit an offense defined by the ordinances of the City, or he or she agrees to aid the other person or persons in the planning or commission of such an offense or of an attempt to commit such offense.

(b)Conspiracy to commit an offense is a Class 2 municipal offense.

18-1-603. - Complicity.

A person is legally accountable as principal for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense.

18-9-111. - Harassment.

(a)A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he or she:

(1)In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person;

(2)Follows a person in or about a public place;

(3)Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message, computer, computing network or computer system, in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal by telephone, computer, computing network or computer system which is obscene;

(4)Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation;

(5)Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property;

(6)Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges or communicates with another in a manner intended to cause a reasonable person to feel fear, intimidation or annoyance; or

(7)Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him or her to physical contact.

(b)As used in this Section, unless the context otherwise requires, obscene means a patently offensive description of ultimate sexual acts or solicitation to commit ultimate sexual acts, whether or not said ultimate sexual acts are normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or excretory functions.

(c)Any act prohibited by Paragraph (a)(3) of this Section may be deemed to have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call, electronic mail or other electronic communication was either made or received. Any acts prohibited by Paragraph (a)(4) of this Section may be deemed to have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call was either made or received.

(d)Harassment is a Class 1 municipal offense.

16-3-304 Search warrants- contents

(1) If the judge is satisfied that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that such grounds exist, he shall issue a search warrant, which shall:

(a) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the premises, person, place, or thing to be searched;

(b) Identify or describe, as nearly as may be, the property to be searched for, seized, or inspected;

(c) State the grounds or probable cause for its issuance; and

(d) State the names of the persons whose affidavits or testimony have been taken in support thereof.

(2) The search warrant may also contain such other and further orders as the judge deems necessary to comply with the provisions of a statute, charter, or ordinance, or to provide for the custody or delivery to the proper officer of any property seized under the warrant, or otherwise to accomplish the purposes of the warrant.

(3) Unless the court otherwise directs, every search warrant authorizes the officer executing the same:

(a) To execute and serve the warrant at any time; and

(b) To use and employ such force as is reasonably necessary in the performance of the duties commanded by the warrant.

18-3-207. Criminal extortion - aggravated extortion

(1) A person commits criminal extortion if:

(a) The person, without legal authority and with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to perform an act or to refrain from performing a lawful act, makes a substantial threat to confine or restrain, cause economic hardship or bodily injury to, or damage the property or reputation of, the threatened person or another person; and

(b) The person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) by:

(I) Performing or causing an unlawful act to be performed; or

(II) Invoking action by a third party, including, but not limited to, the state or any of its political subdivisions, whose interests are not substantially related to the interests pursued by the person making the threat.

(1.5) A person commits criminal extortion if the person, with the intent to induce another person against that other person’s will to give the person money or another item of value, threatens to report to law enforcement officials the immigration status of the threatened person or another person.

(2) A person commits aggravated criminal extortion if, in addition to the acts described in subsection (1) of this section, the person threatens to cause the results described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section by means of chemical, biological, or harmful radioactive agents, weapons, or poison.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “substantial threat” means a threat that is reasonably likely to induce a belief that the threat will be carried out and is one that threatens that significant confinement, restraint, injury, or damage will occur.

(4) Criminal extortion, as described in subsections (1) and (1.5) of this section, is a class 4 felony. Aggravated criminal extortion, as described in subsection (2) of this section, is a class 3 felony.

18-3-602. Stalking - penalty - definitions - Vonnie’s law

(1) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly through another person, the person knowingly:

(a) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or

(b) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues;

13-21-1403. Civil action - definitions

(1) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Harm” means physical harm, economic harm, and emotional distress whether or not accompanied by physical or economic harm.

(b) “Private” means:

(I) Created or obtained under circumstances in which the depicted individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(II) Made accessible through theft, bribery, extortion, fraud, false pretenses, voyeurism, or exceeding authorized access to an account, message, file, device, resource, or property.

US Constitution

Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Bill of Rights, Article Nine:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Federal Laws:

18 USC 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18 USC 2381

In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in an open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d Section 97:

"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 "Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"

American Jurisprudence Book 16, 2 edition, Section 177 late 2d, Section 256:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.