Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
if I'm following you - a Supreme Court or district judge will take and sign two oaths of office. The private swearing in as "Justice" is the civil oath/administrative officer in equity. The Title 5 oath for Civil Servants.

And then the ceremonial oath (equal right to the poor and to the rich) which is verbatim Judical Oath of 1789. The Title 28 oath for Judges and Justices. Judicial Justice. The Article III judge of the Constitution.

One individual, two oaths, to fill two roles. And in our travels we have only found two Judges in the entire federal judiciary signing the proper "So help me God" Article III oath - justices REHNQUIST & KAVANAUGH. The others have deviated and thus are not bound to the Constitution.

Thus it would seem this is THEIR* last line of defense against the redeemed, against those of us who have figured out federal taxation, who have wandered off the plantation. An unbound judge can opine that we're wrong when we're not. That judge is not bound to the law (Constitution) and will only dispense the appearance of justice, not justice itself.

*substitute noun of your choice: banksters, Deep State, elite, secret society of sociopaths, etc.
I get cynical sometimes and so when I read you being cynical I think it is unproductive. I will be careful.

Administrative government cannot exist without judicial oversight. Administrative "government in miniature" combines the branches so that there are no checks and balances. KAVANAUGH signing a properly formed fidelity bond is confession of guilt and the most unequivocal whistle-blowing in human history. He reveals there is no judicial branch left and therefore no administrative government.

I designed it.

That was James Harlan's gripe.

How can I make Judge Wiley Young DANIEL put on his Article III cap?