Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
That is basically it Frederick Burrell;


When an officer is setting properly with an oath - then there is authority. When he is not, there is a vacant office and de facto authority from acquiescence and voluntary submission.

Some associate the model with government being a corporation but that has its limitations in my opinion.

Look through this Exhibit.

There is a combination of factors that qualify an office. The oath must follow form - meaning if the official swears, he or she must swear by an authority - namely in Colorado - the ever-living God. If the official affirms instead, then they must follow that form - which is not to swear. One or the other.

If the official is a county judge, then the oath must be subscribed and published at the county clerk and recorder. If the official is a district judge - then the oath must be subscribed and published at the secretary of state. If this is not correctly filed then the office is vacant.

When there is a defect in the oath - the intention is clearly that the de facto office is only valid if the official hurries to correct the problem. Read People v. Scott. However chief justice Mary J. MULLARKEY had to justify current AG John William SUTHERS for running his DA position (Fourth Judicial District - Colorado) for eight years so she clipped only this sentence to deny certiorari:





Wouldn't you guess - this certiorari has been scrubbed.

I have always upheld that this one sentence, selected because it has nothing about repairing the defect quickly as possible, would only hold true if the electorate is aware the official's oath is faulty and decides as a body politic that it is fine. - Which of course, the People would never do if they knew that the official was intentionally running a vacant office.

Click here. SUTHERS cleared out his office the next morning.
So, in essence, what is being offered here is that the "culpability dodge" of the supposed oath-sworn officers, who are the entrusted governing force, is what renders said officers impotent and derilict of the obligations and duties they would otherwise be bound by law and oath to perform.

In other words, there exists NO responsible, honorable and willing guardian or governing force who will perform the understood and expected duty-bound obligation of preventing an unlawful seizure on land against a peaceful inhabitant who has declared and demonstrated competence and the absence of being in contract with the Federal Reserve.

What is a man to do then?