“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
To be bound by Oath is a contract which means that elected officeholders are required to purchase a penal bond in order to validate their office. Many, if not all, officeholders since the 1960’s have not been bonding themselves to their Oath. This means that their offices are vacant according to law.
It is a problem for judges that have not bound themselves to their Oath of Office for they are not legally holding office, so their courts are incompetent and they do not have jurisdiction.
Are there any competent courts? Are laws written by people pretending to hold office valid? Are most, if not all, offices around the country vacant? Pretending to hold office and taking public funds is a crime of embezzlement.
What difference does it make? All elected and unelected officials are thieves, rapists, and murderers. I never signed a contract with any of them so it doesn’t matter if they took an “oath” or not.
The whole concepts of “Republic” and “Rule by Law” are fallacies. Who picks the delegates who write the constitution? Who ratifies the constitution? Who chooses judges to interpret the constitution? Who elects politicians to enforce the constitution? The Majority. It’s all majority mob rule dressed up with paperwork and rhetoric so the people don’t see that a criminal gang is running their lives.
Officeholders can be legally challenged as imposters. In a court of law, if you are charged with a crime or lawsuit, if the judge does not legally posess the office he/she claims to hold, then his/her court is incompetent and has no jurisdiction.
Government does lay claim to much of the land where wealth originates. If you chose to live a life of poverty, then land ownership would not be important. However, property rights affect everyone and should be important to you. Land ownership and property rights are both important issues for me.
It’s not majority rule. It’s an Oligarchy that controls.
While I understand why you are saying what you are saying, the fact is that they control the military, law enforcement, and the distribution of wealth. If that is not important to you, or something you would like to change, then why are you here?
“Officeholders can be legally challenged as imposters. In a court of law, if you are charged with a crime or lawsuit, if the judge does not legally posess the office he/she claims to hold, then his/her court is incompetent and has no jurisdiction.”
Claiming to have jurisdiction over non-subjects makes them all imposters anyway.
“Government does lay claim to much of the land where wealth originates.”
What they are saying is that while you may make interesting points, attempting to use the corrupt courts, legislative system, or law enforcement to expose the corruption of the courts, legislative system, or law enforcement stands zero chance of success. The power elite which grips the political system are not about to indict themselves based on the misgivings of constitutionalists. You’re arguments are useful insofar as they expose such corruption, but the real remedy lies in what is exactly going on here - education - so that more people’s eyes are opened to the fact that the political system is rigged from the get-go.
The answer lies not in appealing to corruption to correct itself, but withrdrawing support and comfort from it altogether.
The fact is that courts in New Mexico are recognizing that they do not have jurisdiction and that their hands are tied. Lawsuits are being put on hold until competent courts can be found. So, when you claim zero chance of success, the proof is in the results.
They take money from me to support their regime. If I withdraw my support, they come after me with guns. If I beat them in their own system, then positive changes happen peacefully. I prefer the latter.
What most people miss is that the talking heads on TV and the radio is not truth. Many people around the country respect the law. What I am looking for is not some silly… “laws don’t pertain” BS, but for people who have studied the Constitution, support it and understand law.
Thats great if victims of the state have had success with such a strategy; did you innovate this approach or where did you hear about it? It reminds me of Mark Stevens of Adventures in Legal-land fame, are you in contact?
What difference does it make? All elected and unelected officials are thieves, rapists, and murderers. I never signed a contract with any of them so it doesn’t matter if they took an “oath” or not.
That’s a little strange, I’ve certainly heard the government being referred to as a criminal organization. Some of which are certainly engaged it what might be called “plunder” and some of which that aren’t but are nonetheless labelled as murderous thieves by some libertarians. But to claim that “all elected official are rapists” is a little much…
No, I did not innovate this approach. I learned of it last spring. I have copies of the lawsuits which I would be willing to share with interested parties. I don’t know how to post a pdf in this forum and some of the documents I have are images not text. I can email them, but I don’t know how to post them.
“Officeholders can be legally challenged as imposters. In a court of law, if you are charged with a crime or lawsuit, if the judge does not legally posess the office he/she claims to hold, then his/her court is incompetent and has no jurisdiction.”
Claiming to have jurisdiction over non-subjects makes them all imposters anyway. Imposters, or not, I’m claiming “legal challenge” according to their laws.
“Government does lay claim to much of the land where wealth originates.”
There are a lot of ways to support liberty, and it’s not obvious which ones work better. Education is one of the most important, but there are other ways too.
You’re suggesting that we should sue the government in their own courts. This has had some success (Mark Stevens, apparently New Mexico), but is seems that fundamentally the government is not going to convict themselves of any serious, systematic crimes. It’s useful to point out the hypocrisy and injustice in government by bringing them to court, but this approach is limited and we should remember that this limited constitutional government is largely a myth.
Thats great if victims of the state have had success with such a strategy; did you innovate this approach or where did you hear about it? It reminds me of Mark Stevens of Adventures in Legal-land fame, are you in contact?
Thanks for the information about Marc Stevens. I will watch and read his stuff.
The concept I am talking about pertains to contract law.
If I buy a car and pay for it, and the seller does not deliver the car, then our contract is void. Virtually every judge in the land will rule that I get the car or my money back.
If an office holder swears the Oath to support the Constituton, but does not purchase the penal bond, then the contract is void and their office is vacant. This is the problem that judges and office holders around the country are facing. In New Mexico we are forcing their hand. If you have someone in your district that you would like out of office, or a lawsuit you would like to win… then force their hand.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”