Therefore please try integrating the absurdly strange behaviors of the Department of Justice and the US Supreme Court itself!
Attachment 5104
Witness with REHNQUIST who copied the oath verbatim from the 1789 Judiciary Act we have transparency. But with ROBERTS we find the DoJ is not willing to show us his oath of office? Plus this mailing was delayed by the postal machine running out of ink, and the envelope jamming so that the bar code was improperly printed. All on what should be a standard response that should have never gone into appeal.
The DoJ should have sent the oath on the first FOIA request, in my opinion. I believe I can make better sense of it for you readers here. This routine request for the oath of office has some major consequences in international law!
BTW: The Appeal defaulted on June 4, 2018 days before it arrived in the mail, because of the poor quality of the DoJ mailing room. Just the same, the defaulted appeal is only saying the DoJ will get to it as soon as they can. Defaulting on June 4 means this will reach judgment on July 4 - how appropriate!
Reply With Quote