Re: [tips_and_tricks] Oaths - Petty Technicalities - Re: Removing Bad Judges by Qui-Tan ?
- I think you may have missed the most important point here.
If an oath of office is a requirement of that office and is omitted, then the office has not been filled. If the office has not been filled, however much of a petty technicality it may be, the 'pretender' to the office has access to neither the authority of the office nor any of its protections or perks. In particular, issues addressing immunity and jurisdictional authority are particularly dependent upon these technicalities unless, of course, they are conceded as a matter of neglect.
At 6/7/2003 -0500 07:14 AM, you wrote:
>Read the US Constitution, Article VI. It is a waste of time to chase down
>signed Oaths. If they act as a Judge or Prosecutor they are BOUND DOWN by
>the supreme Law of the Land. They are bound by the Oath even if they did not
>sign it. But you look petty, and appear to be looking for a "technicality"
>to escape accountability for doing something bad when you use the "Oath
>issue" in your case. For petty technicalities contact ft. He knows all of
>them in detail.
>Focus on the limitations imposed upon the Office, they represent, by the
>Constitution in your State and the Constitution for ALL the States. Look to
>your State Statutes to see what their duties are and, more importantly,
>where their duties are NOT. Keep them boxed in. Challenge their
>"jurisdiction" whenever they exercise "discretion" that is OUTSIDE the box
>of LIMITED duties given to the OFFICE. Their "title" represents their
>"duties". It is NOT a "title of nobility" unless YOU treat it as such.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/ Join our Experiment in OpenLaw
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Molokai Advertiser-News (aka The MAN) George Peabody"
>To: <JAlanDaum@...>; "Ed" <ED44@...>
>Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:17 PM
>Subject: Removing Bad Judges by Qui-Tan ?
>> Ok you guys, what is this Qui-Tan or Tam action? I am chasing down
>> Oaths of Office documentation for prosecutors and judges here, looks like
>> some have failed. Is Tam Action good for this?
>> aloha, George Peabody
>> Impeach them. Bring a Qui-Tan Action, on behalf of the People, against
>> them in both their Official and Individual Capacity. [ or is it Qui
>> Tam ? ]
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/