Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Illinois Judges Have Oaths

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    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
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
      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
      office.

      "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.
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Oaths are not my biggest gun, just the first one possible to use. I d have to say that my biggest was the ability to hamper completion of arraignments,
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
        mn_chicago wrote:

        > 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.

        Oaths are not my biggest gun, just the first one possible to use. I'd
        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
        travel.

        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
        skeletons").

        Regards,

        FF
      • Bob law
        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
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 28, 2006
          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.

          Respecfully,
          Bob L.

          --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > mn_chicago wrote:
          >
          > > 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.
          >
        • mn_chicago
          ... Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments. Most of my experience have been in courts of equity. If I recall, mention was made about
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 29, 2006
            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
            wrote:

            >Oaths are not my biggest gun, just the first one possible to use. I'd
            >have to say that my biggest was the ability to hamper completion of
            >arraignments, thus preventing trial.

            Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.
            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.
          • Frog Farmer
            ... The above, in my opinion, does not follow, i.e. most of my arraignments have been in courts of equity. Actually, all of them have been. I think that when
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 29, 2006
              mn_chicago wrote:

              > Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.
              > Most of my experience have been in courts of equity.

              The above, in my opinion, does not follow, i.e. most of my arraignments
              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 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?

              If one looks at the definition of "arraignment", no, one could not come
              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 been
              > understanding their use to apply to arrest situations, rightly
              > or wrongly in my assumptions.

              Yeah, wasted time there! But I have recently posted quite a bit about
              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
              situation.

              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
              cooperate!"

              Regards,

              FF
            • advance pum
              ... Look at this. Paul Docket Number:________________________________________ District Court for the united States of America Removal On Removal from the (name
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 2, 2006
                On 9/29/06, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > mn_chicago wrote:
                >
                > > Looks like I will be spending time learning about arraignments.
                > > Most of my experience have been in courts of equity.


                Look at this.
                Paul


                Docket Number:________________________________________






                District Court for the united States of America




                Removal


                On Removal from the (name of) Court at (location)




                Notice of Removal


                (Name of Secured Party)
                C/o (Address)
                (City, State, postal zone)
                Private Man





                (Name)
                C/o (Address)
                (City, State, Postal Zone)
                Private Man

                (Phone number)


                district Court for the united States of America


                STATE OF __________ Case No: _____________________
                Plaintiff
                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.
                "Defendant"
                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
                DC).
                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."
                Emphasis added)
                Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the united States of
                America

                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 _____________.



                (Name)






                Page 2 of 2
              • one
                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
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 7, 2006
                  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.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.