Image Image

  Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

Sunday, 29 November, 2020

Judges? Or Cross Dressers?

Date: 04 November, 2000

By: Chief

Imagehere is but one difference. One has sworn to and subscribed to an oath, the other has not. One is an officer de jure and the other is an officer de facto. To put it another way, though the judge may have won the election, if, upon entering office or before, he did not subscribe to the oath of office, he is not lawfully sitting the bench. He is simply a cross dresser — a man in a black dress. The same holds true for any other elected official. Just because they won the election, if they didn't subscribe to the oath, they are not lawfully in office. There is, to be sure, a huge difference between subscribing and filing the oath of office and doing the oath on television. One is lawful and the other is for ... show and tell.

Consider then, for the moment, your county. How many members of the board of supervisors may have not subscribed to the oath of office? If your county has five members and three did not subscribe to and file the oath of office, how can the board meet? They have no quorum. Hence every resolution, every ordinance, every agreement entered into is invalid, null and void. As for a judge ... er ... cross dresser, every sentence, every ruling, every opinion issued by the honorable cross dresser is in excess of jurisdiction, without lawful authority, under color of title, office, law and is null, void and invalid.

Rather strong words are they not? Where would one find such supporting law? In the state where I reside, such information is contained in (1) the state constitution, (2) the government code and (3) supporting case law. However, the point here is this, those who wish to govern must adhere to the law. There cannot be, though there is, a double standard. One set of rules for those elected and a different set for We the People. If a law applies to We the People it must also apply equally to those elected to serve us.

A trip to the office of the county clerk might well be in order. This way certified true copies of oaths or a letter stating no oath on file can be obtained. It then becomes time for We the People to start correcting wrongs.

But what is the wrong committed? As stated earlier any official action taken by any elected official or body of officials. There can be no double standard. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, is quite clear about that:

". . .nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That statement invokes the other amendments and protections within our Constitution. Therefore, is it not denial of due process if a judge, who in fact is not lawfully a judge, renders a decision, be it in favor or against you? Is it not denial of equal protection for members of a board of supervisors, who in fact are not lawfully in office, pass an ordinance which affects, directly or indirectly, your liberty? Furthermore, is it not a violation of due process of law to be tried by a district attorney, who in fact is not lawfully a district attorney? These are just three examples. There are, most certainly, plenty more to go around.

You see, even though they may have won an election, the final qualification is subscription to the oath of office. If they fail to do that, they have no more authority under law than you or I. They are, to be sure, not a judge. Not a district attorney. Not a sheriff. Not a member of the board of supervisors. They are citizens. No more, no less. Succinctly put, a judge who fails to subscribe to the oath of office, for whatever reason, is not a judge. He is merely a cross dresser. This analogy can be applied to any elected official.

There is but one remaining question. If a purported elected official does not subscribe to the oath of office, yet acts in a 'de facto' capacity, must he or she adhere to the Constitution? Why should they? They took no oath. They have no fiduciary duty to uphold anything. This is real bad news for We the People. We the People expect our elected officials to uphold the supreme law of the land ... but they do not. Maybe it is time for We the People to give the boot to those who failed to subscribe to the oath of office. If nothing else, it would be a very good start on the road back to liberty.

Who do you want to sit in judgement? A judge ... or a cross dresser?

(Return to the top)