| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 04 May 2005 : 00:18:58
|
Occasionally on the Patriot landscape we find people talking about oaths of office and how they can be utilized to either get honest behavior out of public officials or in the alternative to oust them or even punish them criminally for malfeasance and sometimes even misprision of treason. But never have I really seen any of these folks managing the concept in reality effectively. So I would like to take a moment to explain how to utilize the oath process as testimony and a transceiver utility.
The mechanics works the best if you can find an oath of office for the particular individual in question. Somewhere in the past. An oath that testifies the person knows the state and federal constitution. Then compare this information with the constitutions. The federal constitution only goes specifically into the oath of office of the President so get a searchable (.pdf) constitution for your local state from the Secretary of State website.
We will use the State of Colorado. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/2001_const.pdf
In late 1996 the district attorney for the Fourth Judicial District in the State of Colorado John Suthers was pestering me about drawing on a letter of credit with Public Office Money Certificates. Suthers had been district attorney for close to two four-year terms. There was a case going in the State district court* and the day I filed a certificate of fact that John Suthers had never filed his oath of office with Virginia Buckley, then the Secretary of State was the last day that John Suthers worked as (if) district attorney. He only had about six weeks left so the News was after him for an explanation which never came forth. The Certificate of Fact was accompanied by his oath of office which he had filed with the local county clerk and recorder.
That is basically the mechanics. It is far better to have John Suthers' testimony than hearsay. So his locally filed oath expresses that John Suthers is quite responsible to have read and understood the State of Colorado constitution prior to accepting his commission to office.
quote:
Article XII Officers.
Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected.
Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.
People either do not understand the concept of fidelity or they just plain do not care. John Suthers is attorney general for the State of Colorado since Ken Salazar got into Washington. Even if he ran a vacant office for nearly eight years.
When John abruptly left office, he basically elected his replacement Jeanne Smith by leaving her in charge of things. Several months later James Harlan AYERS, a friend of mine (now deceased) went to the Secretary of State's office and requested a Certificate of Search on Jeanne Smith. At ninety years old it surprised me that he was treated like a criminal or terrorist. But Jim stood his ground and they let him pay for the Certificate but told him it might take a couple weeks to arrive in the mail. Two weeks later it arrived and was dated a week after his Denver visit.
Two things to note about the quote above from the State constitution. 1) It does not specify the attorney general. And 2) there is no specification on the time period "...prescribed by law,". John Suthers the attorney general is the embodiment, the general address of all the district attorneys. So it just follows logically that he must file his oath with the secretary of state on the same constitutional principle with the district attorneys. The lawfully prescribed timeframe for such matters is thirty (30) days. After thirty days running office without filing with the secretary of state, the office is deemed vacant.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
The suitor's name has been altered for his privacy. The fellow is very busy and finally got around to tracking these oaths yesterday. The Secretary of State's office deputies told him they will no longer provide Certificates of Fact for oaths or anything that they do not have on file. There have been terrible complaints. Well, he went back today and got Certificates on both district attorneys and as of today was able to get one on the attorney general as well. They called him yesterday after he left and informed him that John Suthers had faxed over (someone gave him a heads-up about the inquiry) his oath but they could only give him a copy (not certified) since it was only a fax. Today John went over and got it properly filed, even pestering chief justice Mary J. Mullarkey for her signature. Too little too late. Take a look at the last paragraph of the Order and Decree. Also it has been well over thirty days since John took his seat in office - the office of attorney general is now deemed vacant in any court of competent jurisdiction in light of the State of Colorado constitution.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Court of record. This is why you should get your local constitution searchable .pdf. Look for "court of record" and "courts of record":
quote:
DISTRICT COURTS
Section 9. District courts - jurisdiction. (1) The district courts shall be trial courts of record with general jurisdiction, and shall have original jurisdiction in all civil, probate, and criminal cases, except as otherwise provided herein, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 04 May 2005 01:41:29 |
|
|
I. Scriabin
Senior Member
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 04 May 2005 : 21:53:12
|
Excellent workmanship and very effective examples David Merrill!
Will you continue please? |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 05 May 2005 : 08:17:26
|
Further counsel led to the decision that this is a defensive action; not offensive. Only the proofs of service will be published. Not the entire Notice to the combined court clerk. That is to say the clerk has been notified that entertaining any actions against the one man, in his true name or imposed pseudonym will be collusion with criminal activity - a prosecution originating from an intentionally vacated office. Only proof of service will be filed at the clerk and recorder. To publish the fact John Suthers is running a vacant attorney general office would be detrimental and also, cornered quarry is much more dangerous than an escape route. These words of course are nothing more than Internet Yarn and I am allowed to lie through my teeth. So if you need to, it is incumbent upon you to take the trips to your clerks and gather the information you need to disqualify anybody persecuting you. You of course cannot print out this Topic and say, "David Merrill says..."
Readers will find it very helpful to study Rule 804 from the Rules of Courts-Martial - United States. This covers admissible evidence and of course under War and Emergency Powers (1933) is quite applicable. I learned about the Rule on JAG. Cool. The opening clips used to brag about the "Law of the Sea". United Nations' charter law in combinatorial mathematica acted out through 'home rule' cities, towns and counties. Application of administrative remedy within the scope of positive law jural society. Same thing. [METRO]
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Center_for_Creative_Leadership.wmv
And http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_Center_for_Creative_Leadership.mov is a view from the top of the hill above the Center. Download QuickTime to view if you are having trouble seeing the panarama. [Drag your mouse to rotate.] Look at the right of the Center at the blue house in the valley. That is where I enter the field on the ebike. Point being the opulence of UN situated in the middle of "open spaces". They even have a resident falcon family nesting on the grounds.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 05 May 2005 09:40:10 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 05 May 2005 : 09:51:26
|
"These words of course are nothing more than Internet Yarn and I am allowed to lie through my teeth."
Thank you for the much needed laugh my friend!  
"Thanks, I needed that."
Hey... I remember back on 1986 while off skiing on Colorado (Breckenridge), I went up a small mountain where Buffalo Bill was said to be buried there. It was close to Denver I believe.
Back to oath of office... just a few days ago, I read on a blog that a Republic of Texas fellow was arrested for pursuing the oath of office reality, plus having signs put up on his front lawn etc...
I am,
Manuel |
Edited by - Manuel on 05 May 2005 09:53:22 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 05 May 2005 : 11:29:35
|
| That is why if any of this Internet Yarn were to come around, I would simply require my persecutor to bring forth the testimony upon which any accusations are based. Internet Yarn. Whoever he or she is, the cause would be expelled from any court of record (court of competent jurisdiction). |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 05 May 2005 : 15:28:24
|
That building looks to me like if it was a vessel/sea faring ship, and on the foreground as if a tower behind it with a rocket going though it. Or maybe its due to the many images programed unto the analytical receptive side.
Too, I would say it goes down under, as well as scan up high, and produces its own power. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 06 May 2005 : 14:39:33
|
| The building is fascinating. The facade is a university but there is an approach that is very METRO; uniformity and conformation to global municipal policy. One could easily debunk me for calling the mission United Nations. But it is combinatorial mathematics I speak of - a 'home rule' positive law jural society with boundaries set apart from the Constitution. Novation upon the Great Writ of habeas corpus. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2005 : 07:54:41
|
There is some interesting information about convening grand juries without the scope of the US or attorneys general. This would seem to have the prosecutorial power to bring errant attorneys general and district attorneys into line with the law.
http://www.rangeguide.net/gjmemo.htm
No information about the source.
Using State of Colorado for a guide:
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/main.htm
I search out "grand jury" and "grand juries" to find the proper procedure to convene a grand jury in Denver, Colorado using the same recognized courtrooms the attorney general and US attorneys use daily - without them.
The rest is just dealing with ignorant clerks because the process has become so atrophied from lack of use. But if you have your constitution and the court rules handy, which all make it clear you are in no way barred from the usage of your courtrooms and courthouses, then it might go fairly smooth. You could probably have the sheriff gather your jurists - I forget the name in common law - for the jury commissioner.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 12 May 2005 08:13:45 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2005 : 13:01:02
|
I remember I once went in to serve a habeas corpus using federal court jurisdiction. The clerk kept insisting that I had to pay 250 bucks. After some persistance and showing him the rules I finally asked to speak to his supervisor. The clerk went inside some secure door and after a few minutes came out by himself telling me that I was correct.
The habeas corpus was filed, but the finding was "denied without prejudice."
Mind you, the habeas corpus was attacking the attorney/judge/and their client, which by the way now, has been recently arrested for credit card fraud (just a couple of days after this past valentines day), and after hearing some background on the matter (my young daughters mother), also had a record of larceny , insurance fraud and more I think would follow, only much of it probably is hidden due to mental illness. The behaviours I witnessed where even more horrible, which she also was arrested once.
Now, if all this happens in the daylight, what happens in the dark? Could it be that the ruling elite continue to recruit to build up their tainted fabric? Oh yes! No daubt the public serpents are swarming around my little daughters life... and that my friends, gets too unbearable for me to handle at times. Specially after the maternal grandmother calls my sister asking for help, worrying that if something happens to her, that my little daughter might be taken away. But hey, what about me, is it that I, after seeing, feeling, and hearing the massive fraud, just one day decided that birds of a feather flock together and wanted to fly in peace by myself? There are volumes of appeals, habeas corpus, etc., which they simply denied per curiam. Demands to be judged by an impartial jury of my peers, without a bar-fly "judge" which in fact, could not even have ruled on my demands to begin with, but simply recuse him/herself do to conflict of interest.
As time passed, just before the shock & awe campaign, I visited the Southern Command Military Headquarters, requesting a meeting with the highest ranking officer in charge. I was instructed to travel a few miles away to meet with a an Army Colonel. After venting my grieviance, and explaining the situation for about an hour, the Colonel kindly and even heartfelt, told me to go visit the JAG office which was another few miles away. The Colonel (I believe was a full bird), had made a call for the JAG officer in charge, to await my arrival. I met with the JAG officer. He had two silver bars, forgot the Naval officer rank insignia of squids :), and ex-plained the situation. Beside him was an army Staff Sargeant bearing witness and with notepad. I could tell that their ears where burning, specially after alerting the JAG Officer of the corruption within his own bar-fly industry and showing him a few "motions" set on thje record. The meeting ended when the Staff Sargeant ask for an SSN. The war on terror took off in full gear, overdrive.
Now the lights are on, but there is nobody home. Left with no lawful recourse, nor petition for recourse nor demand grievance. Most good men are off, leaving this once beautiful land of the free and home of the brave barren, like a desert with no water to satisfy ones thirst. A dry plain, full of thorny bushes and and their poisonous creatures of prey.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 02:24:41
|
Trial by Jury
"A Judge is a Judge of the Court" (Supreme Court 1899), ie: a Judge is not "the Court" - he is "of the Court", ie: a part of the Court. A Court is constituted by a Judge and a Jury. There is no Court unless there is a Jury. Trial by Jury means Trial by Jury....not Trial with Jury, as the Judges and Parliamentarians tell you and have written into their Rules. The only way a Judge can hear and determine the whole of any part of an action is if both parties give their clear and unequivocal consent to be without a Jury (same 1899 Act) - and, even then, if the Judge feels that, at any time, there should be the input of the community, he will call for a Jury.
Statute Laws since then have been corrupted and are not laws because no Constitutions give any Parliaments the authority to take away the Rights of the People (eg: the Right to Trial by Jury).
Summary jurisdiction is quasi-contract law - parties agree to have their dispute mediated by a Judge/Justice... or any other person!
No Judge or any other Officer of the Court can make a Judgment on the whole or any part of an action - and that includes Notices of Motion, etc. All those fraudulent, lying, criminal, treacherous and foolish Judges are headed for prison.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 02:27:32
|
Definition of TrialTriŽal
n. 1. The act of trying or testing in any manner.
2. Any effort or exertion of strength for the purpose of ascertaining what can be done or effected.
[I] defy thee to the trial of mortal fight.
- Milton.
2. The state of being tried or tempted; exposure to suffering that tests strength, patience, faith, or the like; affliction or temptation that exercises and proves the graces or virtues of men.
Others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings.
- Heb. xi. 36.
3. The act of testing by experience; proof; test.
Repeated trials of the issues and events of actions.
- Bp. Wilkins.
3. That which tries or afflicts; that which harasses; that which tries the character or principles; that which tempts to evil; as, his child's conduct was a sore trial.
Every station is exposed to some trials.
- Rogers.
4. Examination by a test; experiment, as in chemistry, metallurgy, etc.
4. (Law) The formal examination of the matter in issue in a cause before a competent tribunal; the mode of determining a question of fact in a court of law; the examination, in legal form, of the facts in issue in a cause pending before a competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining such issue.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/trial
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
|
Uncle Buck
Advanced Member
Australia
134 Posts |
Posted - 21 May 2005 : 02:33:53
|
In New South Wales, Australia, the Acts Interpretation Act defines and identifies the heads of power for many functions of State Officials. I am sure the USA, England, Canada and New Zealand etc... have similar sections as ours. Read carefully what the legislation says! This may reinforce from where true AUTHORITY eminates.
Interpretation Act 1987
Long Title
An Act relating to the interpretation, construction, application and operation of the legislation of New South Wales; to enact certain provisions of a common or general nature; to make provision with respect to the exercise of certain statutory functions; and for other purposes.
79 Authority to administer oaths
Any person or body authorised by law, or by consent of parties, to conduct a hearing for the purpose of the determination (by that or any other person or body) of any matter or thing shall have authority:
(a) to receive evidence, and
(b) to examine witnesses, and to administer oaths to witnesses, who have been lawfully called before that person or body.
*************************
If I have to be like him who is going to be like me?
James 1:25 The Perfect Law of Liberty |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Oaths as Transceiver Utilities
