I think it an evolving perspective.

Lately I have been considering that there are two oaths of office for federal judges. I had not read them both closely in comparison. One is for a civil servant and it is sworn and signed in the Appointment Affidavit. The other, the judicial oath is deviant in form.

Once I was waiting for a new suitor to come out of the old Federal Courthouse in Denver. At the Wall Street Cafe across from the Tenth Circuit:


There was a man near me and another man congratulated him about a White Paper he had recently published. So I identified the fellow as a Justice of the courthouse across the street. They were walking behind me and I opened and held the door for him, leaving the Qwest building. I asked, Are you an Article III judge? He chuckled (nervous, I caught him by surprise) Hardly! Then he paused and summed me up at a glance. But I have been thinking about that a lot lately.

Of course you would have to be there to really get the nuance, as he thoughtfully jaywalked and climbed those stone stairs into the Tenth Circuit Courthouse.

It is funny that it had not occurred to me why two oaths at all, until recently. The restructure reveals something wonderful!




Now get a look at a suitor joindered into the Albany Remand.

Operations in equity are fine by me. Now that I understand what is happening. Patrick tried to file a garnishment against the Colorado "judge" an hour before the bond hearing. The charges were all dismissed and she was prepared to let it all go, apparently. The Phoenix USDC clerk refused to publish the garnishment - against the law at Title 18 and when Patrick went into the bond hearing was arrested and is now in extradition to Fort Collins, Colorado.

The behavior in racketeering of pretending to be judicial judges effects the lives of some more than others.