1. The people of the State of Michigan established under the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article VII, § 7, “Boards of supervisors to operate and control their County Government, being County; “Board of supervisors shall be established in each organized county consisting of one member from each organized township and such representation from cities as provided by law.” (Emphasis added). Const. 1963, Art. VII, §7, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. 2. The people of the State of Michigan established under the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article VII, § 8, “Boards of supervisors shall have legislative, administrative and such other powers and duties as provided by law.” (Emphasis added). Const. 1963, Art. VII, §8, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. 3. The people of the State of Michigan established under the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article VII, § 9, “boards of supervisors shall have exclusive power to fix the compensation of county officers not otherwise provided by law. (Emphasis added). Const. 1963, Art. VII, §9, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. 4. In re Apportionment of Ontonagon County Board of Supervisors, 380 Mich 736; 158 NW2d 497 (1968); 11 Mich. App. 348, 157 N.W. 2d 698 (1967), The Michigan Court of Appeals dealt for the first time, in a civil case filed by progressive in search of new government, dealt with the issue of the “apportionment plan,” set forth by the Ontonagon Board of Supervisors, finding that one Township within Ontonagon County would not be properly represented by the Board, and therefore the “apportionment plan” was found to be unconstitutional. The State legislator, through the judicial branch of the Michigan Government, i.e. appearing to use a Michigan Supreme Court opinion to provide cover, created an entirely new form of unconstitutional county government to occupy the Constitutional government of the people known as the “Boards of supervisors” through a set of unconstitutional statutes, being Public Act 261 of 1966, indexed at MCL 46.401-46.416 et seq., having no operation under color of any law, clearly usurped the peoples’ Constitutional “board of supervisors” and their specific authority set forth and granted in their Constitution of 1963, Article VII, Section 7, 8, and 9, ratified by a vote of the people of the State of Michigan in 1964. When statutes and constitutional provisions are construed, the judiciary has no [legislative] or [administrative authority], but only the "judicial power," which involves resolving the case before it and determining the meaning of the [law created] by either the Legislature or the people directly, (The people may directly create law by [initiative] or [constitutional amendment] only). When the Michigan Supreme Court exercises the "judicial power," it is, as said by Justice Cooley, concerned with a determination of what the existing law is, even in "changing" a mistaken interpretation, rather than making a "predetermination of what the law shall be for the regulation of all future cases," which is an act that "distinguishes... a legislative act from a judicial one." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p 91. Simply creating a County Board of Commissioners out of thin air by legislative act without a Constitutional initiative, or amendment approved by the people of the State of Michigan renders the legislative statutes, indexed at MCL 46.401 through, but not limited to 409; MCL 46.11, et seq., (being Public Act 156 of 1851, as amended) unconstitutional; therefore the unconstitutional entity known as the Antrim County Board of Commissioners, clearly not acting under the color of any law, is hereby unconstitutional from its inception. See Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 442, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 1125 (1886). "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed" (Emphasis added). It would appear that the progressives within the State’s government, in creating the County Board of Commissioners failed to ask the people of the State of Michigan what they wanted or following the normal course of action to change the State’s Constitution by initiative or referendum, circumvented and failed present the people with a chance to vote on the question of the creation out of thin air, without the Constitutional authority, an entity known as County Board of Commissioners, an entirely newly created form of county government, made up of newly formed “districts” from which board members were taken to sit on this newly created unconstitutional county board of commissioners. Therefore, usurped the Boards of supervisors, the only true Constitutional form of county government under Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9, and the peoples’ Constitution cannot be changed by legislative act since the Michigan Constitution of 1963 does not provide for such authority to the State legislators for the creation of an entity known as County Board of Commissioners. 5. The unconstitutional County Board of Commissioners has absolutely no inherent Constitutional authority granted by the people of the State of Michigan. The unconstitutional County Board of Commissioners has usurp and is occupying the Constitutional board of supervisors powers, administrative authorities, and legislative authority granted by the people. See Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 442, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 1125 (1886), "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed" (Emphasis added). What are the intentions of these usurpation actions, motives and intentions of the unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners as they relate to the unlawful exercise of usurpation and occupying the peoples’ Constitutional authority granted to the County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, 9, and the legislative law, the legitimacy and constitutional authority under which the entity known as the “County Board of Commissioners” claims to be acting must be presented as evidence of its Constitutionality for its existence, the superintending control, and lastly, the necessity of the position and the corporate organization to the public that already voted to establish their Boards of supervisors in the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9. There exists no Constitutional or lawful legislative information, or authority on the operations, control, functioning, and fiscal integrity of the entity known as the County Board of Commissioners anywhere in the Michigan Constitution of 1963; nor does the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provide any authority for the entity known as the County Board of Commissioners to enter into Union contracts with County officers, and employees, or make promises of future tax dollars spent on union pension funds, health benefits, and salaries. It is impossible to reform an unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners form of county government, having no inherent Constitutional authority from the people for its very existence and is even more inconceivable to end false claims, unconstitutional Union contracts, and the unconstitutional collection of the people’s tax dollars; the issuance of tax money to non-profit organizations for political purposes as opposed to Constitutional authority without first a total accountability and transparency of exactly what this unconstitutional entity known as County Board of Commissioners and its unconstitutional Board Members who have usurped and are now unconstitutionally occupying the Constitutional, and de jur government positions of authority known as the Boards of supervisors. One form of government cannot be interchange and then argued the County Board of Commissioners, a entity, a newly created form of county government, made up from newly created districts not found in the Michigan Constitution of 1963, as expressing the people’s will under their Constitutional mandates, specially found in Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9, since the unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners was established by legislative statute (fiat) indexed at MCL 46.401 through, but not limited to MCL 46.409; MCL 46.11, et seq., (Public Act 156 of 1851, as amended) without any Constitutional authority, deriving its members from newly created districts within County at large. The Constitutionally created Boards of supervisors was created by Constitutional authority granted at Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9; deriving its members from the duly elected Supervisors from each organized Township within County, therefore acting under the full color of law. 6. The usurpation and unlawful occupation by the unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners, of the Constitutional Board of supervisors continues to accelerate the precipitous climate of the publics’ anger, suspicion, distrust, mistrust, and continues to create an adversarial relationship between the voters of County and the unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners; the people (electors) who continue to believe in the Constitutionality of their elected Board of Supervisors, members who are made up of duly elected Township Supervisors from each organized township in County under the only Constitutional authority granted by the people to the State’s Legislatures under Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9, to control, operate legislatively, and who have exclusive power to fix the compensation of county officers not otherwise provided by law. The unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners, a usurper, continues to perpetuate a culture of abuse, graft, abuse of authority, and make unlawful decisions detrimental to the electors of County. The unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners continues to deny, abuse, usurp, and maliciously interfere with the protected Rights of the people of County to vote and elect their members of the County Board of Supervisors; representing the peoples’ political interests in County; provide notice to the public at large of a Constitutional Board of Supervisors meeting; the Right of the people to participate in their local government, have an equal chance to perfect a change in the outcome of the County Board of Supervisors decision(s) at a public hearing, by and through the direct and indirect neglect and malicious intent to usurp the Michigan’s Constitutional Board of Supervisors of their County, acting under color of law. “by what Constitutional authority” does the unconstitutional entity known as the County Board of Commissioners exercise control, administrative authority, legislative authority, and exclusive power to fix the compensation of county officers not otherwise provided by law over the Constitutionally created Board of Supervisors, whose members are Constitutionally elected and approved by the voters of the State of Michigan in their Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9. Of course, if there is no such provision in the fundamental Constitutional authority of the people, from which the people can infer a creation of the quasi corporation known as the County Board of Commissioners in potentia, if the quasi corporation sought to be created by an invalid statute Public Act unknown to the constitution or by implication is excluded because the constitution itself establishes the agency which is to perform the functions, there can be no basis for the color of authority requisite to the recognition of a de facto corporation. See Hildreth v. McIntire, 1 J. J. Marsh. 206 (Ky. 1829); People v. Town of Nevada, 6 Cal. 143 (1856); Colton v. Rossi, 9 Cal. 595 (1858); Snyder v. Studebaker, suprcs note 34; Att’y Gen. v. Marr, 55 Mich. 445, 21 N. W. 883 (1885); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 442, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 1125 (1886); Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579, 43 N. W. 638 (1889); City of Guthrie v. Territory, 1 Okla. 188, 31 Pac. 190 (1892); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. Kearney County, 58 Kan. 19, 48 Pac. 583 (1897). Therefore, the County Board of Commissioners is not operating as a “de facto” county board of supervisors, having no inherent Constitutional power or authority under Public Act 261 of 1966; indexed at MCL 46.401-409 creating unconstitutional “districts” from which members of this unconstitutional County Board of Commissioners were unconstitutionally elected from, and having no inherent Constitutional power or authority under Public Act 261 of 1966, and indexed at MCL 46.11 et seq., creating unconstitutional legislative powers and authority not granted to them by the people of the State of Michigan, and is repugnant to the Michigan Constitution of 1963, specifically, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9. See Norton v Shelby, supra, "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed" (Emphasis added). In fact, county board of commissioners and its members are persona non grata! The people being armed with sufficient facts presented demanding under “what authority do you operate,” clearly usurping the intent of the people of the State of Michigan and their Boards of supervisors. The State Legislature unconstitutionally adopted Public Act 261 of 1966, indexed at MCL 46.401-46.416 et seq., having established by law (without constitutional authority) newly created [districts] within each organized county of the State, as opposed to Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Section7, mandating duly elected township supervisors members come from each organized [township] within each organized County of the State of Michigan, being directly repugnant to the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article 7, Sections 7, 8, and 9. Having demonstrated clear facts of the Michigan County Board of Commissioners, and its board members usurpation of the County Boards of supervisors, and its members, what action will the people take against the County Board of Commissioners, made up of nine (9) district members. See Michigan Attorney General Opinion No. 6964, stating in pertinent part:
The question of the Legislature's authority to prescribe qualifications for the constitutional office of circuit judge was considered in Attorney General, ex rel Cook v O'Neill, 280 Mich 649, 658; 274 NW 445 (1937). There, the election of the defendant to the office of Saginaw County circuit judge was challenged for failure to comply with 1935 PA 107, section 40, which required a candidate for the office of circuit judge to be admitted to practice law for a period of at least eight years. The court declared the statute unconstitutional, holding that the Legislature could not, by statute, prescribe qualifications for that constitutional office beyond those found in the constitution. See also, People, ex rel Hughes v May, 3 Mich 598 (1855). When the Legislature itself establishes a public office, however, it may prescribe qualifications for election to that office. People, ex rel Wexford County v Kearney, 345 Mich 680, 688; 77 NW2d 115 (1956). (AG Op No. 6964, p. 1). (Emphasis added).
By any chance have you read the one man/one vote decision of the United States Supreme Court promulgated post 1963?