Vacant Offices become the Norm in Colorado?

I sent off a request to the Secretary of State the other day and found that the DA for Colorado Springs and the area (Fourth Judicial District) is running his office vacant.

Dan MAY's Oath of Office.

Form of Oath.Form of Affirmation.

Here is the Oath as required by the Secretary of State.

Proper form for swearing any oath is to plainly state the authority witnessing the oath. If you have scruples about that, or do not believe in God, then you can affirm instead. This new hybrid between is not constitutional nor does it conform to statute. Dan MAY's defect is plainly not a temporary one. The case cited; People v. Scott only applies to temporary defects.




Regards,

David Merrill.

This Oath problem is systemic. As I’ve related elsewhere , the Orange County Citizens Grand Jury was making efforts to bring this to light in the mid 1990’s .

The Free Enterprise Society picked up that ball and has quite a bit to say about it. No personal recommendation for them here , just some FYI on the situation in California and their long standing project on the subject . Or should I say long sleeping ? Hempfling and crew don’t seem to make much progress beyond selling memberships and “Education” tapes .

The page concludes with a transcription of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Gray Champion .

Some snips from :

Oath of Office Project

Currently not one official in the State of California has taken the Constitutionally prescribed oath of office. This means, that there is no person occupying offices in our legislature, judiciary, or executive departments. Hence, we have people pretending to occupy our government offices who are not government officials. These people are passing laws, enforcing laws, and allegedly meting out justice.

We are currently attempting to gather the research and documents needed to petition the United States Government for Redress of Grievance and have them act under Article IV, Section Four of the United States Constitution and restore our Constitutional Republic. Of course, we must decide do we petition the Courts or the Congress. We have decided that petitioning the United States Congress should be our first attempt at correcting this situation. But we need help!! We must accumulate thousands or documents going back to 1953 to prove out our case. This is no small task.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution reads as follows: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The language is unmistakable. Every State within the Union of the United States is guaranteed a republican form of government. And, this guarantee is extended to each State by the government of the United States. In fact, every territory which applied for statehood was obligated to form a republican form of government and operate thereas to the satisfaction of the United States Government, for a period of time, prior to being admitted as a State of the Union.

(We will address later in this work how the courts have viewed the political/justiciable doctrines which arose as a result of Article IV Section 4.) In fact, if one is inclined to read the Act of Admission for California one would find that when admitting California to the Union, Congress "found [California] to be republican in its form of government". This could easily be identified by Congress upon examination of the California Constitution which established a republican form of government, in addition to the actual governmental practices in which the State of California engaged.

Article IV, Section 4 is further bolstered by the "Supremacy Clause" contained in Article VI Clause 2 which states "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

With these two Articles in place it cannot be doubted that every State of the Union is guaranteed a republican form of government, as opposed to any other type of government; that such a guarantee is the Supreme Law of the Land and cannot be contravened by any other law any State may decide to make; and, it is the duty of the United States government to ensure that this guarantee is not displaced by some more expedient form of government. And, California adopted and ratified a Constitution consistent with the United State’s Constitution, wherein it was required to provide for a republican form of government.

In Colorado though the attorney general obviously backs his office (finally) with a fungible fidelity bond:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6...lefidelity.jpg

John SUTHERS is principal to Dan MAY. Thinking this through though, it may be that Dan and John are setting things up so that the long-illegal DA operations are guarded by color of de facto law.

Thanks for the post Trust Guy!

You found one !! Most interesting David .

Germane to this problem is the Socialist bent of politicians and extended influence of the Socialist Bar Association for some many decades .

Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus

[there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Background on DSA from the Wikipedia thingie .

Some ancillary history :

Scribid :

80th Congress - House Report 1920 - Report On The Communist Party Of The United States As An Advocate Of Overthrow Of Government By Force And Violence


PDF of above :

81st Congress - House Report 3123 - Report on THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party

Other formats and downloads of above :

I don't think I found it as much as I caused it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I sent off a request to the Secretary of State the other day and found that the DA for Colorado Springs and the area (Fourth Judicial District) is running his office vacant.

Dan MAY's Oath of Office.

Form of Oath.Form of Affirmation.

Here is the Oath as required by the Secretary of State.

Proper form for swearing any oath is to plainly state the authority witnessing the oath. If you have scruples about that, or do not believe in God, then you can affirm instead. This new hybrid between is not constitutional nor does it conform to statute. Dan MAY's defect is plainly not a temporary one. The case cited; People v. Scott only applies to temporary defects.




Regards,

David Merrill.

---

Perhaps because the offices of the republic are vacant of people?
This reminds me of resident vs. domicile of a State.

Shoonra was unable (or unwilling) to answer my simple question, "If a person is a resident, where is their domicile?".

I have always thought the domicile is in the state - the organic state. And the residence is in the district - the state district is a fictional overlay with the same surveyed boundaries.

Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON, Esquire confirmed that the Judiciary Act of 1789 formed the Districts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I have always thought the domicile is in the state - the organic state. And the residence is in the district - the state district is a fictional overlay with the same surveyed boundaries.

---

Sounds as good as any.
I will definitely do more research on this.

The district is probably primarily commercial.

It will be fun claiming domicile of the State as opposed to residency. There is an affidavit, I will need to shoot down first....

The district overlays appear fundamental to Gov. claims of territorial authority . When I started striking "Residence / Address" with stating "Seated" I sure got some confused looks , but no refusals of forms involved .

Seated. I like that.

One thing that was a buzz among the Roger ELVICK crowd as discussion about how offices were being ASSUMED. From Wall Street to D.C., persons were ASSUMING offices as contrasted with, say, actually holding offices through lawful process. Perhaps the above might give insight the recent mishaps on Wall Street.

Keep in mind a person taking the office of, say, DA might sign a job application that has an agreement to "obey the president of the United States" complete with other jargonage. THAT could be construed to be an oath of office.

Nonetheless, someone in authority over the State of Colorado could send a letter to any person holding office and 'quiet title' to the office.

Quote:

---

Dear R. A. Fiduciary

It is come to my attention that you are holding office of ________ of the County of _____. Likely you are aware that holding that office comes with certain duties and obligations. You shall hereinafter be construed to have taken the following oath of office...

{cite the oath of office}.

If you have any questions or comments concerning the above, you have ten days to make them known by sending written communication to me.

---

Remember also that they are required to be U.S. citizens and therefore there are duties of that office too. In other words, it shouldn't be too hard to comprehend that you can quiet title and tidy up any loose ends. After fifteen days, you could follow-up and remind them that they are bound by the oath of office.

Figured if they are going to continue the ontological fantasy that this gangster usurped country is “Of, By and For the People”, that We are “Sovereigns without Subjects” , the “Source of Political power” and all that , I might as well play along and make it so .

Governments have “Seats”. The King is Seated on a Throne . A County Seat over a given geographical area . Courts are Seated in Counties , Estates or “Districts“ . Legislatures have Sitting Members . Jesus is Seated at the Right Hand of GOD .

So , I exercised some Political Will and took my Seat . “Claimant in Personam” and all that .

As relates to this thread subject : If an "Official" is going to claim some authority over me , that claim to representational authority within MY Body Politic had better be legitimized by Oath and Bond per Law and Statute and Regulation as stated , Black Letter . Other wise it is Trespass on MY Estate in Liberty . An attempt at Conversion .

Sovereigns without subjects? The public citizens (office holders) ARE the subjects.

I think this may be a perfect example of assuming an office. Look at the Power of Attorney. Traveler's Insurance assumes the Name DAN MAY. And Dan never even signed?

Might that be what you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trust Guy

Figured if they are going to continue the ontological fantasy that this gangster usurped country is “Of, By and For the People”, that We are “Sovereigns without Subjects” , the “Source of Political power” and all that , I might as well play along and make it so .

Governments have “Seats”. The King is Seated on a Throne . A County Seat over a given geographical area . Courts are Seated in Counties , Estates or “Districts“ . Legislatures have Sitting Members . Jesus is Seated at the Right Hand of GOD .

So , I exercised some Political Will and took my Seat . “Claimant in Personam” and all that .

As relates to this thread subject : If an "Official" is going to claim some authority over me , that claim to representational authority within MY Body Politic had better be legitimized by Oath and Bond per Law and Statute and Regulation as stated , Black Letter . Other wise it is Trespass on MY Estate in Liberty . An attempt at Conversion .

---

Wow... that's nasty.
I likey :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trust Guy

The district overlays appear fundamental to Gov. claims of territorial authority . When I started striking "Residence / Address" with stating "Seated" I sure got some confused looks , but no refusals of forms involved .

---

I don't expect the lower office paper pusher, revenuer, or even attorney to understand what's going on.
As the case rises higher in court, it should set off alarm bells :).

Private ruling ??

A quick look for those who prefer to sail the Sea of Contract instead of Inheritance . Very tongue in cheek .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wanted for Hire : The Umpteenth District of Illinois has a position opening for State Representative available on November 6 , 2012. Applicants must apply by Petition of Election not more than 99 days and not less than 92 days prior to opening . Applicants must be available to begin work on the Second Wednesday of January 2013 .

Duties and Responsibilities : Chosen Applicant must take an Oath of Office to Uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the Statutes passed pursuant there to . Applicant must secure a proper Performance Bond for their Office in the amount of Diddly Squat Dollars . Applicant must be physically fit enough to sit around the Illinois House of Representatives , whenever in session , and pretend to give a damn .

Qualifications : Applicants must be Citizens of Somewhere above the age of 25 , and residents of the Umpteenth District for so many years . Applicants must have no criminal record or the appearance of ties to known criminal organizations .

Remuneration : Salary paid monthly in the amount of More than you Deserve . Office staff , Security staff , Limo transportation and mailing privileges provided as non-taxable benefits .

Prior experience preferred but not mandatory .
-----------------------------------------------------------

Offer : Job above .

Acceptance : File Petition

Consideration : Give Oath and Bond / Take the Bux and Benefits .

I'll get into Judge L.B. Bork's take on SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS a little later .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Wow... that's nasty.
I likey :).

---

Yeah . The Oath and Bond thing has been a sore point with me for a lot of years . No Oath = Office Vacant by Operation of Law . PERIOD .

Are district court judges mandated to file their oaths with the Secretary of State in the State which they preside or with the Secretary of State in Washington?

You ask after hours on a Friday?

Here's what I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

You ask after hours on a Friday?

Here's what I have.

---

It was 2:20 pm my time when I posted that question.


That is certainly a treasure of information, thanks!

Here is my memorandum to the district court regarding the attempt to bar my ability to file documents into my evidence respository.

Attachment 698

Thank you for sharing that doc.

An evidence repository is indeed a valuable asset for R4C and protecting property rights.