Personswithout proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy thenecessary requirements to “hold” a bona fide “Office”, by ‘commission’,“election”, or “appointment”.　 In short, an ‘Officer’ or “Office Holder” cannot but ‘occupy’ the officeunder false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which stripsthe ‘individual’ of ‘law authority’ and ‘immunity’ under well-seasoned law ofthe land and sea.　 Brutum fulmen!!　 　Bonds that are attached to such juristic ‘persons’ are subjectto claim and lien, after “adequate assurance of due performance” has been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619. 　　A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary “poles”of “Office” [Oath, Bond, Commission].　 One cannot act upon being ‘dulyappointed’ or ‘duly elected’ or ‘duly commissioned’ simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

 ------------------------------------------  

The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statuteis personalto plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and theoffice becamevacant by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or notthedefendants knew or were chargeable with notice thatplaintiff hadfailed to file his oath, and they are not required to makeanydeclaration or give any notice. On his default in' filinghis official oath"the appointment was vitiated and the office * * *became vacant"

[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex reI. Walton v. Hicks,infra]. 

======================================================================  

Cooperv. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S.v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821)   Cooper v. Aaron, 358U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it."The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.""The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, theindividual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise can not be imposed."  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 

WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity  (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398;Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to actin good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their"individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts,they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity."