Understanding Breach of Trust
Government officers occupy positions of public trust, creating fiduciary duties toward the natural persons they are constitutionally obligated to serve. When these officers violate their oath, exceed their constitutional authority, or act with fraudulent intent to deprive citizens of unalienable rights, they commit Breach of Trust and Breach of Trust with Fraudulent Intent—actionable violations that void their acts and expose them to personal liability.
The following four scenarios represent the most common forms of breach of trust in constitutional restoration cases. Each scenario includes detailed analysis of the breach, the constitutional basis for challenge, and the remedies available to natural persons whose rights have been violated.
Constitutional Analysis
- The judge swore an oath to support the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 3)
- Enforcing an unconstitutional statute breaches this oath
- Violates the judge's fiduciary duty to protect constitutional rights
- The officer acts outside lawful authority when enforcing unconstitutional law
Constitutional Basis
Article VI, Clause 3 (Oath Requirement); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Available Remedy
The judgment is void ab initio. The plaintiff may bring a § 1983 action for deprivation of First Amendment rights and seek compensatory and punitive damages.
Related Legal Templates:
Constitutional Analysis
- This constitutes structural fraud—capacity substitution without informed consent
- The court breaches its fiduciary duty of disclosure
- Acts with fraudulent intent to deprive the natural person of constitutional protections
- Violates due process by changing legal capacity without notice
Constitutional Basis
Fifth Amendment (Due Process); Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process); United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878)
Available Remedy
The proceeding is void ab initio. The natural person may challenge the judgment collaterally at any time and bring a § 1983 action for deprivation of due process rights.
Related Legal Templates:
Constitutional Analysis
- The agency acts outside constitutional authority (ultra vires)
- The agency's claim of jurisdiction is fraudulent—no lawful authority exists
- This constitutes breach of trust with fraudulent intent
- Violates separation of powers and enumerated powers doctrine
Constitutional Basis
Article I (Enumerated Powers); Tenth Amendment (Reserved Powers); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869)
Available Remedy
The agency's action is void ab initio. The natural person may seek declaratory relief that the agency lacks jurisdiction and bring a § 1983 action for deprivation of liberty without due process.
Related Legal Templates:
Constitutional Analysis
- The officer lacks lawful authority to act without meeting prerequisites to office
- All acts performed without proper authority are void ab initio
- The officer breaches fiduciary duty by acting without lawful authority
- Violates due process by imposing obligations through unlawful authority
Constitutional Basis
Article VI, Clause 3 (Oath and Bond Requirements); State Statutes (Official Bond Requirements)
Available Remedy
All citations and fines are void. The natural person may bring a § 1983 action for deprivation of property without due process and seek return of all fines paid.
Related Legal Templates:
Strategic Use of Breach of Trust Claims
Breach of trust claims are powerful tools for constitutional restoration because they shift the burden to the officer to prove lawful authority, void unlawful acts ab initio (not merely voidable), pierce qualified immunity for fraudulent conduct, create personal liability with compensatory and punitive damages, and establish precedent clarifying constitutional boundaries for future cases.
- Shift burden to officer to prove lawful authority
- Void unlawful acts ab initio (not merely voidable)
- Pierce qualified immunity for fraudulent conduct
- Create personal liability with punitive damages
- Establish precedent for constitutional boundaries
- Failing to establish fiduciary relationship
- Not proving fraudulent intent for void ab initio effect
- Accepting de facto authority without challenge
- Missing statute of limitations (file promptly)
- Using legalese instead of constitutional framework