I just caught onto this thread and thought I would add a comment with regard to the oath of office. Please take note, it is not my smarts that has come up with this but rather studying hours and listening to others wisdom, such as Boris. I am sad to say that THEY ain’t going to follow the law until they are backed into a corner where there is no wiggle room.

By David’s comment: “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...”

This only demonstrates “so what, what are you going to do about it”? And really, in my opinion, they are correct – what are you going to do about the fact that 1. There is no oath of office or 2. If even there were, if they do not follow the law? Ultimately, it is their private game that we consent to participate.

So what is the solution? Well, 1. The fact that all public trustees receive a paycheck from the state is prima facie evidence that they have “some public duty” to perform. 2. That duty can only come from what is authorized by statute. 3. If the statue requires an oath of office and you can not get it, you have the right to presume it, since it is required and they are getting a paycheck. 4. We all have some knowledge that everything is under admiralty and it ALL basically falls under UCC [I wish I had a better understanding of the UCC, but I do not]. 5. If this is the case, what it means to me is that law just about no longer exists. 6. If law does not exist, part of the “war on the land under a national emergency” states in Lieber Code 101, “101. While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means of hostility, and is consistent with honorable warfare, the common law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, and it is so difficult to guard against them.” What this says to me is that they are allowed to trick, deceive, lie, etc as a matter of NECESSITY. We know that the words, by necessity, in essence mean “no law.” 7. It would seem kinda stupid “to war” in their “private domain” under their “rules of war” where they “must trick, deceive and screw you over”.