Illinois Judges Have Oaths
- Thursday 28 September 2006
FF's biggest gun, oath of office, does not fly in Illinois.
Just received copies of Illinois Constitutional oaths of
office for two judges, word for word. No imposters here.
Last month, I went to a suburban town, where a friend of
mine is occasionally stopped by zealous police. She is not
from this country, so the idea of standing up to them is
not quite in her thinking/skills.
I asked for a copy of the requirements for being hired as
police. The clerk is not used to such requests. When asked
if I wanted specific information for officials, or employees
within the department, I told her I wanted what the
requirements were for taking the job, including any oath of
"Oh, they aren't required to take an oath," she replied.
Thank you. I'll wait for the information to be sent.
Illinois ain't California.
- mn_chicago wrote:
> FF's biggest gun, oath of office, does not fly in Illinois.Oaths are not my biggest gun, just the first one possible to use. I'd
> Just received copies of Illinois Constitutional oaths of
> office for two judges, word for word. No imposters here.
have to say that my biggest was the ability to hamper completion of
arraignments, thus preventing trial.
Between oaths and arraignments, there is another opportunity: to
disqualify the judge for cause. That is, by his taking of the oath, he
becomes a judge who may then be disqualified for cause. The
disqualification statutes used on judges cannot be used on mere
neighbors who never took the required oath. The oath qualifies them for
disqualification for other reasons.
The thing about oaths is, where one is required, it is the act that
converts the mere neighbor into an official with fiduciary duties to
fulfill. It is the first official act of the new trough feeder.
Failure to perform the first official act precludes performing a second
official act, absent consent from involved parties. Parties are free to
consent to any arbitrator, even a mere neighbor.
It has been discovered in the official record that a majority of federal
judges in the 9th circuit do not have their papers in order, and thus
are not empowered to act officially absent consent of people submitting
to arbitration. So the "California situation" extends to local, state,
and federal matters. I know that a number of other states are similarly
affected, some having to some degree some constitutionally-imposed
disability to perform lawfully today, these including Washington state
and Oregon as well as California. I've heard that there are others. My
personal interest extends only to the ones to which I might want to
Still, just because two Illinois judges had their oaths in order, I
doubt if Illinois maintains a perfect record in that regard, considering
the general level of Illinois corruption that was rampant the last time
I was there in the 1970s. Cook County and the City of Niles were
basically mob HQ. Maybe things have changed. I'd still check on the
oath of anyone who possibly had any power to adversely affect my own
life. If I found it to be in order, my next move would be statutory
disqualification for cause (any cause I could discover, a.k.a. "closet
- Due to religious objections of participants to the
taking of oaths, the state of Illinois has allowed for
the taking of "affirmations", which is obviously the
same thing as per legal contemplation. Just because
the party said they(officers) didn't have to take an
oath shows the party asking the questions failed to
complete their investigations into the act of the
alleged officers who were required by law to take the
affirmation, and have it on record, if they had
objections to an oath.
--- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
> mn_chicago wrote:
> > FF's biggest gun, oath of office, does not fly in
> > Just received copies of Illinois Constitutional
> oaths of
> > office for two judges, word for word. No
> imposters here.
- --- In email@example.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
>Oaths are not my biggest gun, just the first one possible to use. I'dLooks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.
>have to say that my biggest was the ability to hamper completion of
>arraignments, thus preventing trial.
Most of my experience have been in courts of equity.
If I recall, mention was made about not waiving one's rights in a
traffic ticket situation, and that the small print should be read. Is
this a relatively simple example of where an arraignment begins that
one need to challenge?
Otherwise, when you have mentioned arraignments, I have been
understanding their use to apply to arrest situations, rightly
or wrongly in my assumptions.
- mn_chicago wrote:
> Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.The above, in my opinion, does not follow, i.e. most of my arraignments
> Most of my experience have been in courts of equity.
have been in courts of equity. Actually, all of them have been. I
think that when anyone walks into a court anywhere today, arrayed before
them is a court of equity. You can play or not play, OR you can set
your own court in any manner you want, if you know how. You can walk
into an equity court, and change the nature of it by what you say and
do. You first get rid of the equity court, to that fleeting moment
where the room is just architecture again, and then you invoke the court
of your own choosing (one recognized as a lawful choice). Me, I've been
trained to avoid them all, and cannot conceive of me wanting to go to
one to have anything resolved from any dispute. Court is only for the
resolution of real disputes. I'd rather that my adversary agreed with
me, or that I learn enough to be able to change my mind and agree with
him. Today, with what many call "government" (a loose hodgepodge of
paycheck-anticipating trough-feeding neighbors with a god complex and
too much time on their hands) I like to end any disputes cordially and
with somewhat of my own "court" for the "contestant" (for my
credibility) at the IMOC (Initial Moment Of Confrontation). I would try
to videotape it if I was able at the time.
> If I recall, mention was made about not waiving one's rights in aIf one looks at the definition of "arraignment", no, one could not come
> traffic ticket situation, and that the small print should be read. Is
> this a relatively simple example of where an arraignment begins that
> one need to challenge?
to that conclusion. However, in a "traffic ticket situation" or any
situation (for me, it's all day long) one should be aware of his or her
rights, so as to protect them from violation.
Fine print cannot get read by me anymore on any tickets. I'm beyond my
ticket-accepting days. My current procedure would be to disqualify the
impersonator (being in California where one can be pretty sure they are
facing impersonators is a real convenience in this break-up of the
empire!) and then, if he was a stubborn idiot, call for his boss and
disqualify them both again, and again with a higher level if necessary,
until the top cop was stubborn too, and then we'd all go see the
magistrate on duty per section ___ of the ___ code (too busy to look it
up this moment) and do the same to him. Only, with him, you meet in his
chambers first, as one man to another, and you tell him how they all
lose as a matter of law, and stuff, and then he dismisses all the goons,
who spread the word to leave you alone, and then you disqualify him from
doing anything with you ever again, but you tell him he's always free to
call off the goons.
> Otherwise, when you have mentioned arraignments, I have beenYeah, wasted time there! But I have recently posted quite a bit about
> understanding their use to apply to arrest situations, rightly
> or wrongly in my assumptions.
arraignments in recent messages, giving the official definition and how
I'd use that as a measure against what I saw in the courtroom, and how
when what I see fails to match what the law says I should be seeing, I
don't let anyone pass that fact over. In my own experience, and from
some of my friends using the same approach, many cases have disappeared
for one reason or another. Doesn't it make sense that any time you can
find a requirement that has to be fulfilled in order to do you harm
(like convicting you of a crime) you make sure that the requirement is
fulfilled? It would be a shame to be sitting in jail if one could be
free if only one had spoken up in a timely fashion.
Today's courts are a way for the ruling class to deal with the unruly
class. So the public employees will sit there and be entertained by one
after another ignorant rube convicting themselves and accepting
punishment. The judge is usually mentally calculating today's take in
FRNs. When somebody who knows about rights and law comes before these
folks, the room can come alive. Adrenaline flows on both sides instead
of just one!
If you really haven't had enough of my comments on arraignments I'll try
to answer further questions. But I do not think it's rocket science. I
am not the world's best researcher, and for my "arraignment strategy" I
originally followed George Gordon's advice, and amended it to my local
As we've recently seen with oaths, any of these topics may be dealt with
differently in different jurisdictions, so a reading of one's local laws
is most definitely the first thing to do about arraignments, and
prosecutions generally. If I were to be charged today, I'd crack the
California Penal Code and ask myself, "what in here do they need to do
in order to put me away?" And I'd make a list of "good ones" and plan
accordingly. With arraignment, 988 of the Penal Code, several
requirements are listed.
I've NEVER seen any prosecutor or judge in my county BE ABLE to fulfill
the requirements (even for a murder case). In 25 years, I've only seen
myself and a few others ever DEMAND what is REQUIRED (not even murderers
did it). And I'd say that maybe 1 in 1000 of my neighbors have ever
read any of the Penal Code, and in any one day in court, unless a
"patriot" is being arraigned, nobody even notices that they are not
arraigned before they AGREE to a TRIAL! In fact, "your honor" may ask
them, "and would you like a court trial or a jury trial?" and the Rube
will say how he'd LIKE to be tried! I don't want to be tried!
So, I hunt down and find laws that make requirements for people and
things, and I try to find the ones that are not fulfilled, and if
possible, I'd try to keep them from getting fulfilled!
I once had to remind an angry magistrate, "...but I'm not here to
- On 9/29/06, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
>Look at this.
> mn_chicago wrote:
> > Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.
> > Most of my experience have been in courts of equity.
District Court for the united States of America
On Removal from the (name of) Court at (location)
Notice of Removal
(Name of Secured Party)
(City, State, postal zone)
(City, State, Postal Zone)
district Court for the united States of America
STATE OF __________ Case No: _____________________
Notice of Removal
Vs. from (State Court) to the supreme
Court for the united States of America
(Name), redirected to the district Court for the united
States of America.
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the
Constitution of the united States of America
1. COMES NOW (Name), private Man within the (Name of State) state and
titled "Defendant" in the above entitled matter (hereinafter
Defendant), to petition this honorable Court to remove this case from
the (Name of Court) Court, at the (Address of Court) to the supreme
Court for the united States of America (hereinafter SC) as redirected
to the district Court for the united States of America (hereinafter
2. The SC has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Article
3, Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution of the united States of
America which states:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the united States of
Page 1 of 2
The SC has redirected the original jurisdiction of this action to the
district Courts r the united States of America. Jurisdiction also
rests with this court due to diversity of citizenship.
3. Since the STATE OF (STATE) is a State and party to this action, the
Constitution of the united States of America places original
jurisdiction with the SC in all cases where a State is a party.
4. This removal is mandatory by the Constitution of the united States
of America which used the mandatory word "shall" and not permissive by
using the word may" in its language.
5. The STATE OF (STATE) has attempted to seize jurisdiction by
improperly filing this action in a State court all the while knowing
this State is a party to the action thus requiring it to be filed in
the SC because it has original jurisdiction.
6. The Defendant demands that this action be removed to and heard by
the DC as redirected by the SC as mandated under its original
Jurisdiction under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution
of the united States of America.
7. WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby removes the action now pending against
him in the ( Name of Court) Court, at the (Address of Court), at Case
No. ______________________ to this Court, the DC.
Respectfully signed and submitted, this date of _____________.
Page 2 of 2
- There is no authority in you to redirect. I would simply give notice
of habeas corpus cum causa or ad faciendum et recipiendum to the supreme
Court of the USA by writ of common right and the provisions of Article
III of this Consitution for the USA
Going at it by using the keyword removal will likely run you afoul of
"the removal statute" enacted for the relief of post 14th amendment
citizens of the United States
"private Man within the (Name of State) state and
titled "Defendant" "
Even after they produced - on my demand to know the nature of the
accusation- a birth certificate to show who DEFENDANT is, I would not
volunteer myself for the role.