Violating Oath of Office is a Federal Crime

Originally posted by Phoenix
The recent years since 9/11 have proven our elected representatives have little to no interest in presenting or passing legislation that passes constitutional muster. A myriad of laws such as Patriot Act, GM takeover, NDAA, Bankster bailouts, Operating government without formal budget, mandated Healthcare and coming legislative assaults on second amendment all point to an out of control nearly, if not actually, tyranical government our founders never intended but clearly warned us about.

....
The subject I am bringing to the table is "why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?
....

The reasons we 'allow' them:
A.) The American people are mostly ignorant of these laws and are so divided, they could never come to any agreement on a scale before the media would make those opposed look like idiots through public ridicule. That ridicule would inevitably lead those opposed to lose their jobs and their livelihoods.

B.) The media controls what is seen and what is ignored. They're strings are pulled by corporations who own them and those companies are involved with the government either through fiscal interests or direct direction. Thus...the government would simply ask the media outlets to squash the opposition...as usual.

C.) The American people are a people in fear of their own government. While we THINK we're free, we know we aren't and we know what the consequences might be if we act out. Imagine a bunch of people going after the government for treason...those in power would simply wave their hand and the ignorant police force that oppresses us would simply lock every single person in jail...indefinitely, thanks to Obama's executive order.

D.) See above and repeat as necessary.

we allow them???...you mean me?....tell me how to force them to do the right thing, without going to prison or being shot. you go first

Oaths have always been broken. It's not surprising to see this and it will continue whether or not you agree with it. Yes, something should be done about but as of now, there doesn't seem much we can do about it. If you do have some way to solve it please share.

Originally posted by Zer0megAlpha
Oaths have always been broken. It's not surprising to see this and it will continue whether or not you agree with it. Yes, something should be done about but as of now, there doesn't seem much we can do about it. If you do have some way to solve it please share.

I know they're broken left and right but there actually there is law making it illegal to do so. I am researching who is supposed to apply the law and who has standing to use legal means to enforce it.

Its all I know to do!

reply to post by Phoenix


The reason they get away with this is that they are the lawmakers. Who can we go to for a resolution, if they are all, or mostly all, corrupt? Corrupt Congress, corrupt administration, corrupt courts, money men controlling who comes into power; this all leaves little recourse for the common citizen. Add to that how many are willing to sell their vote for various entitlements, and we are pretty much out of luck!

All real American lawyers grow a couple of testicles step up and get this going get the info to the masses.the stupid flouride heads.I can't believe there are so many f**king dummys in this country.

There must be millions of Satanic under ground church's all around the world now.

reply to post by BlowinSmoke


Doing something right...........are you sure this is what you wanted to say? because what there doing is wrong.by all gauges.

Originally posted by rugger
All real American lawyers grow a couple of testicles step up and get this going get the info to the masses.the stupid flouride heads.I can't believe there are so many f**king dummys in this country.

American lawyers? They are agents of the CROWN. They aren't on your side. They are part of the problem. They are doing their job as assigned to them. Google: Bankruptcy of United States of 1933.

The Cover-up

There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. This is why you can't hire an attorney. An Attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.

"Trust Me."

"I'm here to help you."

"I have the governments permission to practice law."

"I'm a Member of the Bar."

The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam (established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The lawyer's will cite no cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in corporate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for you is a bunch of BULL ROAR. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy by supporting it, even at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the corporate Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.
members.iimetro.com.au...

reply to post by VonDinkinDunken

We aren't powerless and there is an option. We can remove ourselves from the corporation United States Inc. Many have done it. But first you have to understand the situation we're in. The United States is not a country.

"United States" is the "District of Columbia" incorporated.
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State" Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785,
Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287

In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28,
in Section 3002 Definitions,
it states the following:
(15) "United States" means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

On April 24, 1950, the U.S. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, State of California, with Justice Wilson presiding in a case titled "SEI FUJI v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" decided that the Law of the Land is the United Nations Charter

When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty.

In 1933 the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 (Public Law 73-10) of June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463) confirmed in Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912, as well as 31 United States Code (USC) 5112, 5119, Senate Report 93-549, and 12 USC 95a.

Members of Congress are the official Trustees in the bankruptcy of the US and the re-organization

usavsus.info...

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by Zer0megAlpha
Oaths have always been broken. It's not surprising to see this and it will continue whether or not you agree with it. Yes, something should be done about but as of now, there doesn't seem much we can do about it. If you do have some way to solve it please share.

I know they're broken left and right but there actually there is law making it illegal to do so. I am researching who is supposed to apply the law and who has standing to use legal means to enforce it.

Its all I know to do!

Look into Title 42 for the remedy. I don't know if you can use it if your status is US citizen/person. You might have to remove yourself from the corporation first. One other thing-- lawful and legal are two different things. Lawful is dejure, legal is defacto. Law is law, legal is statutes. Statutes are corporation policy and apply to corporate employees, subjects, citizens of the corporation known as United States. If people can't grasp this truth, then there is no hope.

Phoenix

...
The subject I am bringing to the table is "why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?

...

Hi Phoenix. This is my first post. Norquist is a very clever opportunist, and you and I are united in our objection to his usurped power. But there is a major flaw in your thread assertion that lets Congress-persons who have signed Norquist's pledge off the hook. And let it not be over-looked that Mitt Romney signed Norquist's pledge too. If Romney had won the presidency would we really be all one nation under Norquist with lip-service and "just us" for all? What you have assumed--and I made the mistake myself at one point--is that Norquist's pledge is signed by sitting office-holders. But in truth, it is signed well well before. Indeed it is signed before one is elected--just as was the case with Romney. This changes the entire dynamic.

I have argued that this pledge is a tool of an extortion complex where those who refuse to sign also happen to find themselves abandoned of donor support. And if they were to have enough funding to mount a campaign anyway, the hammer of republican on republican extortion takes the form of funding going to the signatory who then has the relatively new weapon of local and/or national partisan media to use to expose the non-signatory of the Norquist pledge as "not one of us"--leaving him or her very vulnerable to the type of republican primary voter who either chomps at the bit to vote their issue or perhaps gets some favor to do so. This has gone untested by law for almost two decades. To me it is clearly collusion in an extortion complex to replace the republican party with dullards who don't know the value of a good name, with unqualified idiots who just want the power and the perqs for their complete loyalty to this gang, and/or reckless ideologues who believe as Norquist that government can't solve problems, "government IS the problem". These are people who either don't value democracy or are criminally insane and are intent on winning in spite of the remnants of democratic discourse by starving the Federal Government until it is weak enough to "drown in a bathtub"--thereby making the whole election and democracy framework just window-dressing for a foregone conclusion that all progressive accomplishments will be done away with in the end and America will be a tyranny in democratic clothes headed by megalomaniacal oligarchs with no capacity for compassion much less understanding of long term sustainability.

This extortion complex explains the near 100% contrarianism of the elected right wing. And unfortunately the fact that the POTUS is our first African-American creates cover called "racism" by far too many people. Criminals don't care if being called racists is the price of getting away with crime and staying out of jail. Doesn't it seem incredible that in this day and age, the entire republican party can all act racists yet rarely if ever show any racism in their rhetoric. Yes, they show it in policy. But it doesn't slip out of their mouths is would be true if racism is what unites a party to be 100% contrarian. No. What unites them is fear of disloyalty to the gang that they are--and they know that they are. They knew damn well when actually taking the true oath of office that it does not say "superseding any prior pledges or oaths to un-democratic totalities". That's how slimey Grover Norquist evades what amounts to the most colossal criminal assault on the US government and the US people ever.

I have struggled to get some interest, some traction, an ear that matters and put forth a plan that I believe the President might favor. And that is to not seek indictments--just chalk it all off as extortion by default of circumstances but have a federal court issue a "cease and desist" order to stop this upstream pledge process because it amounts to the means to perpetrate the kind of replacing of one party in Congress with a gand who is the last group on earth who should have power over such things as the debt ceiling and who seems bent on extorting more concessions even if the deficit fall to zero and we have a surplus. This would start the clock of American justice on all signtories of Norquist's pledge and all colluders in its advancement, that the game is now on the clock and further activity will be a violation of the court order. This is THE way to use existing law without involving Congress to create new law, which it will be at odds with since it already has a conflict of interest.

However, if everyone thinks a "cease and desist" order is a joke and doesn't want to go that way, then I would want help in getting one legislator (and maybe one sick and tired defector from the republicans) to change the oath of office to nullify that absence of wording to address the renunciation of all previous pledges to undemocratically negotiated totalities in which a person or league would in essence "plant" an agent of their scheme into high office to do exactly what they have done and are still free as birds to keep doing until governmnent of the people, by the people and for the people does indeed PERISH FROM THE EARTH.

I was studying about the 'Oath of office' and seen this article.
so, here's my two cents worth. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm willing to learn at all cost.
When I read the Oath of office it is an oath to 'support and defend' the Constitution of the "United States".
Question. Is it possible that they take this oath believing that its null and void because we are under the Emergency war powers act setting aside the Constitution?
Is it possible that the words "United States" is the Corporation and not the "United States Of America", the Country?
In my mind they that take the oath, are taking an oath to support and defend the Legal Fiction Corporation and not the Lawful 50 states of the Union, the inhabitants, the natural beings, the Souls on the Dry Land, the Sovereigns, We The People, The Republic......
By proclamations and legislation We are enemies of the state, belligerents, citizens, persons, slaves.......
seems like in their minds they ARE supporting and defending the Corporation and not The People.
We are the enemies foreign and domestic. We are domestic because we're domiciled in Washington D.C. Some of us are foreign because we have changed our political status and they don't like us taking back our sovereignty!
Maybe we should add the words "of America" to the oath to clarify who they're suppose to 'support and defend'!
The oath should support and defend the Lawful "Constitution of the United States of America"!

originally posted by: 1watchman
I was studying about the 'Oath of office' and seen this article.
so, here's my two cents worth. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm willing to learn at all cost.
When I read the Oath of office it is an oath to 'support and defend' the Constitution of the "United States".
Question. Is it possible that they take this oath believing that its null and void because we are under the Emergency war powers act setting aside the Constitution?
Is it possible that the words "United States" is the Corporation and not the "United States Of America", the Country?
In my mind they that take the oath, are taking an oath to support and defend the Legal Fiction Corporation and not the Lawful 50 states of the Union, the inhabitants, the natural beings, the Souls on the Dry Land, the Sovereigns, We The People, The Republic......
By proclamations and legislation We are enemies of the state, belligerents, citizens, persons, slaves.......
seems like in their minds they ARE supporting and defending the Corporation and not The People.
We are the enemies foreign and domestic. We are domestic because we're domiciled in Washington D.C. Some of us are foreign because we have changed our political status and they don't like us taking back our sovereignty!
Maybe we should add the words "of America" to the oath to clarify who they're suppose to 'support and defend'!
The oath should support and defend the Lawful "Constitution of the United States of America"!

The thing is random people on the internet do not get to decide what is or is not Constitutional. That is the job of the courts. And before anybody does anything Constitutional legal experts exam it.