What I have learned so far.

[David Merrill]

Expanding on my other statement "But isn't the judge suppose to do that and not the clerk?"

I thought the documents that are in court and stamped must be signed by the parties that are trying the case as they are on the same plane or field. So the judge is suppose to have a true oath of office signed and under seal that matches the jurisdiction on the document that needs to be tried. Therefore, the judge has standing to try the case. If the oath does not match, then he cannot try the case. If the clerk signs, that makes the clerk the judge but as you stated, need to learn more about the clerk and there obligations. This would put meaning to someone demanding to see the judges oath to verify they have jurisdiction or "challenge jurisdiction" as they call it.

p.s. I'm not sure if these responses are being put in order. I am clicking reply on the posts at the bottom.

Looks good to me.

All the "judges" are bond-dodging and therefore the clerk is always acting as the judge. But I have not put the suitors to pursuing the oaths of the clerks yet. The clerks are publishing evidence on PACER and so I do not want them recused. The publications might stop too.


P.S. Consider the arrogance and hubris:

Attachment 5110



It is like the attorney was doinking with the Pitney Bowes machinery! And the DoJ is saying they will get to it when they can? This is a FOIA appeal for viewing the oath of John Glover ROBERTS for crying out loud!!

The DoJ defaulted on 6/4 and so Judgment will come July 4.