Both the legal and political implications of such manipulation of process to affect a political purpose - Mayor Lange, Maneuvers are a 'blocking tactic' discriminate 77% of the other bona fide Weld County property owners in fee in the affected annexation. The City's procedural use of the term "landowner" purports to certify she represents 51% of the land area ownership by the City. which is untrue on the face of the representation may be evidence of unethical disloyalty to the general law because at least 18% of the land owners in the affected area have no say in how their property values would be devalued by the City that ignores the Constitutional protection that the land owners in the annexation area petition to be annexed; the Constitution expressly prohibits the City from doing it for them.

Even if Benker had signed the Petition "Mayor Pro Tem" that would not have changed the fact that the undivided interest of the City in the affected area is only 33%, not the majority of 51%, the minimum standard in Colorado Constitution Article II, §30(1)(b). This factually defective City Annexation Process is a political corruption of the Colorado State Constitution to denying 77% of the affected Weld County property equal protection of the Law that the City of Longmont is obligated to provide by 42 U.S.C. 1983: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,"

This fact begs the question: how much is this going to cost the innocent taxpayers of Longmont who will be expected to pay the legal bills for the City's frivolous Court actions that asks State Judges to apply the general law of the 14 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Bill of Rights §30(1)(b), to accommodate the City of Longmont's particular political instance rather than the Court obey the Supreme Law? From the facts presented herein by the City itself by its writings, words of officials and official deeds the City will be putting the Judge on the spot forcing him to either violate his duty as a minister of justice to personally consider substantial justice, as the City Attorney has already gone on record he is willing to do to comply with Council demand May 13, 2008; or in this particular with Firestone case - disregard the law as the Judge knows the law to be binding on him. The consequence, if a Judge were to agree with them could become a precedent unsettling accepted principles of property law that may have detrimental consequences beyond the immediate controversy between Longmont & Firestone. Is this the minimum ethical behavior for Longmont elected and Judicial Officials under the City Charter and their fiduciary duty to the People of Longmont?

The ethical question that Council has a moral duty to broadcast to the whole community concerning these new revelations is: Knowing the whole picture today, that some, if not all members of Council did not see May 13, 2008; Is Council still willing to stand by its vote of confidence or does it wish to set a precedent in the general law discriminating against churches (the church is one of the landowners whose rights are excluded by the sham ownership claim on the Petition) and changing the general law in the process? Is every member of Council willing to support by publication of their name in history, the nullification of the fundamental guarantees of the First and 14 th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution in a sneaky Court action that strips all of the State of Colorado citizens of their guaranteed rights in private property without their informed consent as the City of Longmont now practices on its own citizens without consent?

- # -