Justices & Oaths of Office changes?
Current time: 12-16-2017, 09:29 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Undrstm8ed
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 1
Views: 151

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Justices & Oaths of Office changes?
11-25-2017, 05:36 PM
Post: #1
Justices & Oaths of Office changes?
So i found this and the additional information but I wasnt quite sure where to put it exactly for further reviewing and conversation. Anyone feel like picking this apart or should I just start unrolling aluminum foil in body length sheets? Crap NewsStare

Justices & Oaths of Office - "Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, SHALL take the following oath or affirmation, to wit:

'I, A.B [I.G - Jon Smith].., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer Justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [I.G.] __District_Judge__ , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.' "


Congress On December 1, 1990, however, in Public Law 101-650, at section 404 thereof, 104 Stat. 5124 -- Effective 90 days later, March 1, 1991 (104 Stat. 5124 at § 407) -- alter material by way of amendment, the oath at 28 U.S.C. § 453, 62 Stat. 907 so as to relive all justices and judges of the united States of any duty or fidelity to the constitution; to wit:

"Sec. 404. Amendment to Oath of Justices and Judges.
"Section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out 'according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to' and inserting 'under' ". Pub. L., 101--650,104 Stat. 5089, 5124, December 1, 1990.
Upon Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of justices and judges of the United States, 104 Stat. 5124, provides:

"Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

'I, A.B [I.G - Jon Smith].., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer Justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [I.G.] __District_Judge__ , under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.' "

But....... the only duties incumbent upon justices and judges of the United States to discharge or perform are provided in the STATUTES OF CONGRESS, I.G., the laws of the United States; the Constitution provides none.

The 1990 oath, 104 stat. 5124, severs the connection between the federal judiciary and the Constitution; meaning: As of March 1, 1991, officers of the federal judiciary have no obligation to discharge or perform the duties of their respective offices "agreeably to the Constitution" (62 Stat. 907), and the former judicial-branch officers are now LEGISLATIVE-BRANCH OFFICERS under the exclusive control of congress!

"As we have repeatedly said: 'Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. they possess only that power by Constitution and Statute. . .' " Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004)(quoting Kokkonen c guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 611 U.S. 375, 377(1994) (citations omitted)

The 'United States' you'll find under 28 U.S. Code § 3002 Sec. 15(a) -- (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation id., by the name of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation. And is very different from the 'United States Of America' - (a sovereign republic, Constitution)

"plus peccat auctor quam actor. - The instigator of a crime is worse than he who perpetrates it" -- John Bouvier, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd Rev, p. 2153 -- ...and the instigators of the takeover of the federal courts of limited jurisdiction by MUNICIPAL [emphasis added] judges masquerading as Article III judges and usurping exercise of general jurisdiction throughout the Union, are the Members of Congress.

TREASON !

Justices and judges of the United States have used their position of trust to betray their creators, the American People, by overriding their will as declared at Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, that all judicial officers of the united states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and thereby legislating the Constitution out of the legal process; to wit:

"The Congress as the instrumentality of the sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains.
The Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty power of the people to override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).

-- 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and be fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

WHICH SHOULD MEAN: Void Judgements - A void judgement is an utter nullity, of no legal force or effect, and anyone who is concerned with the execution of a void judgement is concerned in law as a trespasser; to wit:

"A void judgement which includes judgements entered by a court . . . lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgement . . . can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally . . . " Long v Shorebank development Corp., 182 F, 3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

"Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any questions which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgements, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. BUT if it act without authority, its judgements and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgements or sentences are considered in law as trespassers." Elliot v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. (1 pet.) 328, 329 (1828)

"a judgement is void if the court that rendered it . . . acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Margoles v. Johns, 660 F, 2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981)

"The slave is held most securely when he is held by the chains of his own will and of his own fears, and when he is locked down by his own slavish desires for a comfortable life." - Michael Bunker

"I don't have an authority problem.
Authority has a ME problem."
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-25-2017, 05:57 PM
Post: #2
RE: Justices & Oaths of Office changes?
Uh. Can you show me evidence that any of the above is relevant? Specifically, what evidence do you have that "they" (individually or acting in concert) have jurisdiction over you simply because of your physical location?

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)