Greetings suitors;
This recent motion is interesting to me in the context that it says, deviations to the oath of office make it "illegal".
However the quote and citation in itself allows for deviation. That is to say that these two oaths of office are worded differently.
Title 28 §453
“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Title 5 §3331
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Both should be compared to the original 1789 as pertains to federal judges:
Attachment 4340
So I doubt that the Motion holds any legal teeth, especially before the "Judge" being accused of doing something illegal. However a close look at the docket report (attached) discloses that Doc 922 is being skipped over. While Doc 923 is an Order on previous Discovery Motion, Doc 823; from 7/1 entered by a co-defendant... The "Judge" is ordering that this Defendant cannot file any more Motions longer than 10 pages so we start to see why this case, so complicated by so many co-defendants is slowing things down.
But there is something to consider too... with my case in the US Court of Federal Claims. Mr. WOLSKI is recused, indeed. He appeared and spoke, defended the deviation in the Oath, found throughout the legal prescriptions - the verbiage "So help me God." has been changed across the board to: "SO HELP ME GOD." - Which when you think about it is felony witness tampering; God being the Witness.
I have attached a recent docket report from that case, showing that while the DoJ is pleading a motion to dismiss, Mr. WOLSKI seems keenly aware he has appeared as the defendant and so will not utter any more (no response to Doc 17 for months). While Mr. BRYAN of Washington state has avoided my blatant offer of redemption and
so signs a null judgment; having made no such confession as WOLSKI.
And so we may be witness in the Malheur Park case to the "Judge" being stumped, unable to reply immediately or maybe not at all. So we find slot Doc 922 left empty so the clerk might enter the Order in the next day or two, and repair the docket so it looks contiguous again. Or maybe it will be a few weeks? I wonder if they are looking over the things I am doing and showing you here?
So I am asking you to please help out. The docket report alone cost $3.00. So please visit
www.savingtosuitorsclub.net and
www.lawfulmoneytrust.com and donate freely through the PayPal button or by becoming a student/member.
This is extremely exciting as the CASTLE CHURCH TRUST has never been served or affected and as an irrevocable trust continues to protect Jim's dream that the Castle will remain open to the public on a donation only basis for generations, rather than to be subject to seizure for a tourist trap when Jim dies. But there is something in the redemption of the Office BISHOP going on there, that is so big, I cannot blame even you suitors for thinking I am delusional in believing that it is a symbol, the Castle, for a global lien that started fifteen years back (two Release cycles plus the 70th Jubilee (since the invasion of Canaan) year, coming down the pike - 9th of Av is August 13th, and Judgment Day is 10/4/16.
Of course we will see as the weeks tick by. Maybe this will just be a very unique entertainment... Either way, if you could please donate some money, that puts a smile on my face!
Regards,
David Merrill.
From:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 10:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re federal judges' Oaths of Office
If any of you suitors have been following the Ammon Bundy et al court filings, I have attached one that is relevant to federal judges' Oaths of Office. It was filed on Friday by a PRO SE defendant. It may be the Motion to Dismiss all defendants that cannot be overcome by the prosecutor’s countering Motion or by the judge, since Judge Anna BROWN had no Oath authority bonding her to preside over the Arraignment proceeding as to any of the defendants. By now, it seems to me that the defendants’ reserved right to a speedy trial found on the record...
