Public officials without oaths of office

[David Merrill]

There all different:

One is a coroner.. who has taken the lawfull oath called out in the Washington State Constitution
CoronersOath.pdf

Looks like she gave the farm away.. swears to be a registered voter in the State of Washington.. legally domiciled in the State..
AuditorPierceOath.pdf


To be the Body Politic ..........................or not to be that is the question?

Dan MAY's oath shows conscience. He knows without God for a witness his office is vacant. His convictions are bogus so he offers a $5K insurance policy for anybody noticing his bad behavior.

Comes now, Charlotte, not known as Charlotte KEMPF as an extraordinary public minister or ambassador in diversity of citizenship, foreign consul, from the original estate and survey outside the scope of state districts and Federal Reserve districts outlined in ?16 of the Federal Reserve Act and Title 12 USC ?411. All administrative remedy has been exhausted culminating in the prodding by three USSC clerks advising Charlotte that she must enter the US supreme court via Writ of Certiorari. However even after the Tenth Circuit refused to hear new factual information that the district attorney and judge both were running constitutionally vacant offices at the time of trial the Court has now denied Certiorari.

The main problem is that all the convictions MAY has presided over can now be overturned. But you are witness now to eloquent record forming. I will show you on the record that the US Supreme Court is now involved in covering up that the trial judge and the district attorney both had bogus oaths of office at the time of trial and they failed to ask Charlotte, By the way, we are prosecuting you from vacant offices. May we please have your consent to proceed?

The Tenth Circuit said:

...All the violations Kempf alleged in her complaint file in the district court were clearly ?judicial? in nature; the district court properly dismissed Kempf?s complaint.

With respect to the issues Kempf advances in her reply brief, they are not properly before us and we will not address them.

The "issues" Charlotte advanced was discovery of MAY's bogus oath or office. The justices at the Tenth Circuit are saying that they will not address the issue!

(?Our general practice is to decline to address issues not raised on appeal until the reply brief.?).

It does not matter when in the appeal process Charlotte discovered she was being prosecuted from vacant offices! Even with the Tenth ignoring the facts on such a flimsey premise, this issue was fully before the US Supreme Court in the fullness of discovery. So the US clerk of court is caught red-handed in the Cover Up. You are now witnesses to the extent you can believe what you are looking at.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[hobgoblin]

"this issue was fully before the US Supreme Court in the fullness of discovery. So the US clerk of court is caught red-handed in the Cover Up. You are now witnesses to the extent you can believe what you are looking at."

David Merrill,
Can you expound further upon this? I must be missing something with regard to the USSC process.

[David Merrill]

"this issue was fully before the US Supreme Court in the fullness of discovery. So the US clerk of court is caught red-handed in the Cover Up. You are now witnesses to the extent you can believe what you are looking at."

David Merrill,
Can you expound further upon this? I must be missing something with regard to the USSC process.

Happily! However I am likely to start a new thread about this in the next few days.

This is not process within the US Supreme Court as the clerk is rejecting it from being heard. Charlotte paid the correct filing fee for the certiorari and it presented clearly that she had been tried by a "judge" and "prosecutor" who both were running vacant offices. Not only that though, these same officials have years of bogus convictions already.

The process you are witness to is in another court. However cyberspace scarcely counts for a record - as a court of record. This is a court of Spirit. It is a court of truth. The main corruption occured by the Tenth Circuit justices. Lottie already knew about the trial judge being bogus and so she (Karla HANSEN) had no judicial immunity trial day. A judge has to conform to statute for immunity and she did not:

Look at the requirement to have an authority named "the everliving God" for her witness:

Mainly though Charlotte identified herself by signing "Charlotte" on the driver license card. She told the female motorcycle cop that she was not using the card for identification purposes. She was presuming that the female motorcycle cop would of course be the witness the prosecutor (the district attorney) would be bringing to trial. However on trial day a male police officer claimed to be the Stopping Officer:

This was her main cause for appealing but in the Tenth Circuit the justices maintained that HANSEN had judicial immunity so the her oath of office came up a vital point to that. She was running a vacant office. The Attorney General responded to the Appeal at that point and Lottie had a term to file a Response to the Response. At that time she discovered that the district attorney Dan MAY was also running a vacant office on trial day, compounding the invalid conviction, and entered this fact into the record. The Tenth Circuit judges claimed that items entered at that stage of the appeal were not worth looking at, and were not even before them!

What is that?

That is further Cover Up. Listen to them!

With respect to the issues Kempf advances in her reply brief, they are not properly before us and we will not address them. See Birmingham v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 633 F.3d 1006, 1020 (10th Cir. 2011) (?Our general practice is to decline to address issues not raised on appeal until the reply brief.?).

If the justices were to address this issue of the invalid offices of HANSEN and MAY they would open up the door for every conviction since early 2009 to be overturned! Not only that but Kirk Steward SAMELSON of this thread here is the chief judge running a vacant office and by being principal overseeing all the judges that means about every conviction in the Fourth Judicial District since 2009 is suspect...

The convictions I am speaking of do not come from cyberspace though. How do you get out of cyberspace? I am showing you how. Lottie bought me lunch the other day and I asked her if I might post her appeal on the Web. She was pleased about the idea. So look this over and write her or give her a call. I presume that anybody interested enough to climb out of the ether and have their phone on her digit grabber will be respectful of her time and presence, should they decide to speak with her and hear about her experience.

This is how you might become the Record and therefore in your own competency and awareness become the court of record reviewing the US Supreme Court's clerk of court behaviors. I will be providing more details when I compose the new thread, encouraging awareness. The clerk refunded by check Lottie's $300 lawful money and that is likely going back at them for an extraordinary writ coram vobis - like has been written out of the rules - from our court to yours. That will describe the malfeasance of office, and misprision of treason as graduating out of administrative appeal into the court of public conscience - like you calling Lottie for an interview.

We become the transactions and the bank. We hold the wealth by knowing who we are and controlling when we become registered usufruct, human animals, artificial entities, STRAWMEN etc., whatever you like to call IT, the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. And more importantly knowing that all attorneys know that any and every wet ink signature comes from a man or woman created in the image of God.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Interestingly Alfred Norman ADASK of Adask's Law sensed my using his blog as an echo chamber and became spooked. You can sense the paranoia in his irrational reaction. I have been banished from posting there and he has cleaned off all my replies to is baseless rants.

[stoneFree]

Whoa, on that docket for 2/15/11 "JUDGMENT by Clerk." Since when does a clerk judge? Is that LANGHAM?

[David Merrill]

Whoa, on that docket for 2/15/11 "JUDGMENT by Clerk." Since when does a clerk judge? Is that LANGHAM?

Until September or so. LANGHAM is resigning.

You touch the heart of the Libel of Review as an evidence repository. The clerk's judgment (Doc 10) you are speaking of was ordered by BLACKBURN (Doc 9). The clerk is in authority because the clerk knows and understands to follow the published Rules of Court. The suitor opens an evidence repository and utilized the clerk authority in the same manner to form a record of the truth.


Regards,

David Merrill.