I don't really know how to approach this. I have zero legal back ground.
If the person in charge has broken their oath and is not executing his duties as prescribed are we bound to comply? If the representation as assembled does not really represent the will of their constituency are we bound to comply? If we must be forced to comply does this make them illegitimate? If they are illegitimate and we are not bound to comply what then would we do? If fraud invalidates a contract, how are we still bound? The evidence is on full display. I would offer beyond a reasonable doubt.
In accordance with the founding contract, are we supposed to disassemble and put into effect a new governing body? I realize this would result in chaos.
If the makers of the law are them selves lawless and they are in power through fraud are we still bound to comply? Does power flow from the barrel of a gun?
Can the lawless law makes be nullified if they are not held to their own laws? They seem to be representatives in name only.
What I am trying to get at is, why is this happen being allowed? What measures can be taken to correct this? Legally it would seem that the people who are supposed to be the source of power for the governing have been marginalized and dis-empowered. Short of physically taking back what is supposed to be ours, what unbiased legal remedy if any do we have?
Maybe someone can make more sense out of this than I,
Jury nullification is a valid tactic in a legal defense. The problem comes when trying to convince the jury that, even though you did break the law, the law is itself illegal, immoral or should be ignored in this case due to circumstances.
If that fails, you can appeal to a higher court with the argument that the law is unconstitutional. That's often easier in civil court than criminal court, but it's been done.
The problem with this is you have to be charged with the crime to have "standing" in order to contest the law. John Doe can't walk in off the street and sue over the bad law -- he has no standing at that point.
However, in PA, a higher court has just ruled that gun owners can sue for gun laws that may be unconstitutional even if they haven't broken that law. They concluded that an otherwise law abiding citizen need not intentionally break a law in order to sue over a constitutional right. They are assumed to have standing in that the unconstitutional law prevents them from fully exercising their 2A rights. That, in and of itself, provides standing.
This is a huge departure from previous rulings regarding standing. While it isn't binding outside of PA, it may be challenged and find its way into the Supreme Court. It can also be used as an existing precedent when attempting to sue for such laws elsewhere.
While the PA ruing is within the scope of Gun Rights Groups suing municipalities over enacting gun rules and regulations even though the PA state's preemption law prohibits this practice, it would be a short leap from that case to establishing standing for local laws enacted that violate the constitution.
One of the dumbest things that recently happened: several states are seeing legal action against them for passing laws prohibiting handgun ownership for 18-21 yr olds. In TX, a complainant had a very good chance of having the age restriction overturned. But, she "aged out" of the case, because she turned 21 before a decision was made. She no longer had standing, so the case was dismissed. If this PA case could be used as precedence, maybe she could have seen the case to the end.