Must watch. 👀 https://truthsocial.com/users/annvandersteel/statuses/110196900004325201
Ann Vandersteel.
Breaking: Federal Public Officials found with no Oath of Office on file. (Big names have no oath to the Constitution on file.)
Writ of Quo Warrento filed with U.S. attorney in Washington, DC. They have to provide an affidavit to the DC court and attorney in 10 days or get replaced or immediately terminated…per 5 U.S. code 3332. (If I read it right.)
Vice President
Sec. of Defense
Sec. of Treasury
Sec. of Health and Human Services
Sec. of Energy
Sec. of Education
Sec. of Commerce
Sec. of State
Sec. of Labor and Transportation
Department of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Food and Drug Commissioner
CDC Director
And so on…
WH’s got ‘em coming and going…again. If they refuse to pledge an oath to the Constitution, they get replaced (and maybe jailed). If they do pledge an oath to the Constitution, they can be held accountable for their (past?) and future actions. And piss off their handlers.
Anons know what this means and are not surprised. This administration is not a real administration. For new comers, brush up on devolution.link or https://thedocuments.info/
However, the fact that light is being shined on this can only mean that the removal of Biden administration is getting prepped.
Bingo.
Agreed.
Yes. I wonder how many that will go in this sweep are exactly the ones on the Brunson lawsuit?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- Infinity.....
Cool Story Bro, but Good Luck with this one, IF anything, it'll be ignored, if more, it'll get somehow Magically debunked, and if moreso, it'll be fought for years or until they find a place to hide AFTER their Terms in Office have expired....
So yeah, I expect nothing from it....
Not until the time is right. It applies to everything.
Trust the plan. This is a movie. Enjoy it. WWG1WGA, although the ending won't be for everyone. Will it be for you and yours?
Yes of course, but I've been watching everything and warning people about what's been happening since 2007 ish....
Thank you so much. I was waiting for this moment long long long time ago.
Unfortunately none of them will file an affidavit and nothing will happen to them. We have a two tiered justice system and it doesn’t apply to them!
Edit: Perhaps “nothing will happen to them” wasn’t the correct choice of words. I have always wondered how do we undo all the damage the DS/cabal has done since stealing the 2020 election. As has been suggested, if there is no oath of office on file, then everything they have done while in “office” is null and void.
How do you defeat a two tiered justice system ?
By exposing it.
How do you expose it?
You are watching it happen.
How do you get reality TV addicts that chow down on McDonald's 4 times a week to pay attention?
Thats why we need to be taken to the precipice
Take the happy meals away ?
Have you seen the rage caused by failing milkshake machines at McDonald’s? People are exactly like spoiled children.
GC
Big mac combo in Conn 18 bucks reeeeeeeeeeee
4 to 6 percent are lost forever.
If you dont think normies are waking up then there is no help for you.
If the normies were waking up, we wouldn’t need to be brought to the precipice.
Remove everything that isn't meat, so they can be Happy Cannibals???
How do we pay our bills? No one knows.
After things start straighten out a bit, it's a legal case to undo what they have done. If they didn't take the oath, they don't legal hold the position.....
And everything they have done, becomes null and void!
Exactly.
Stop with the doom. Just stop. We all know the hurdles we face. We understand the battlefield. Posts like yours add nothing they only hurt morale. You are doing the cabals work for them. You are doing the job of paid shills and you say you are on our side? Those fucktards at least are getting paid. You destroy morale for free.
It's about trying not to waste effort. If your opponents control the institutions and do not care about rules, then you won't beat them by going to their institutions to try to hold them to the rules.
The path to victory is not through a courtroom. The courtrooms are a part of the post-victory cleanup. Victory lies in convincing the masses that the institutions need to be overthrown, and creating replacement institutions to facilitate the overthrow.
It’s not dooming, it’s a reasonable expectation that we have seen play out again and again. We have to stop calling things we don’t want to hear as “dooming”, especially when it keeps coming to fruition. We need to strategize with these losses for alternatives/work-arounds/plan Bs, instead of rejecting it from discussion out of blind hopium.
This is the exact same thing as both Brunson cases. One was flat out denied twice by the Supreme Court and the other is waiting in Utah SC to move to the US SC.
Not "exactly the same thing". In Brunson's case its about not carrying out their duties. This will probably be a complement to that case.
Stop right there, especially after we have spent the last 3 years listening to "serious medical minds".
I listened to serious medical minds tell us that all the covid bs was bs. But I didn't even need that. It was pretty apparent.
Show me a single serious legal mind that actually believes this suit is viable. I am skeptical that there is even one. But even a blind hog gets an acorn sometimes so there is probably 1 or 2 guys claiming so. A first year undergrad pre-law student would fail if they turned in that lawsuit. You don't have to like it. You are free to wish this suit did something. But living in reality is a lot better than actually believing this was going somewhere. At least don't send these clowns money. Don't let them grift off your righteous indignation and hope for accountability.
You are again stuck in the perspective that only other people can decide legality. My suggestion is, if you want a real answer, read the lawsuit for yourself. Look up the relevant parts of the constitution / US code and determine for yourself whether it is valid or not.
We are not talking about "viable" here - thats a very subjective term and depends on subjective interpretations of various people. We are talking about "valid" - which is whether its objectively correct or not as for as Law is concerned, assuming they can prove all the factual claims they make.
I did quite a few breakdowns of this a few months ago when everyone was getting hyped about it. It’s bad. It isn’t valid.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/x/c/4ToipzNEEaa
I think this link goes where I intended it. Ive commented ad nauseam about this case and how it will predictably go nowhere. And if we had perfect angels on the bench, the outcome would be identical - booted.
I cannot believe these fools cite a criminal statute defining the punishment for treason as grounds for a court to grant them this relief in a civil suit, either.
The only fraud they claim is fraud in the inducement. Not “election fraud.” To illustrate how non sensical that is, they would need to claim they would never have voted at all if they had known this was the outcome. They were duped into voting. Which makes zero sense.
You cannot get caught up in all the hype they start their lawsuit with. It is the bulk of their complaint. But none of that ties in with the actual claims for relief that they made. I can’t read it any other way than one of two options: (1) they are morons; or (2) they cloak their grift in everyone’s righteous indignation about egregious fraud in the 2020 election. I suppose it could also be both.
Calling the Constitution a “contract” is more of a philosophical analogy than it is a legal argument. “Promissory estoppel” is a form of equitable relief arising out of contract law when there is no binding contract between the parties. It is rarely successful. An example of promissory estoppel being successful was an old case between Aretha Franklin and a concert venue in New York. At least I think it was her. It was a famous singer from Detroit. There were negotiations about her coming in to play a series of concerts. They reached a preliminary agreement on basic terms but had not finalized all of them. But the concert venue began planning/spending on improving the venue to put on her shows. She eventually backed out and got sued for promissory estoppel. The venue incurred substantial sums of money in preparing the venue and an advertising campaign. They were allowed to recover it on the basis that they relied on the assurance she would sign the final deal; it was only minor issues left to work out. When you lack a contract, you cannot demand specific performance as relief. Only expenses you incurred in reliance on the agreement can be claimed as damages. The benefit of the bargain is not on the table as relief.
The biggest red flag of all: they accused Tracy Beanz of treason for questioning the validity of their suit. Now that is a head scratcher…
Just want to make sure, are we reading the same docket?
I am referring to this one
You have claimed:
How did you come up with this? There is not a single occurrence of the word "inducement" in that filing. Every single occurance of "fraud" with respect to the defendants is coupled with either "treason" or "violation of oath of office".
So I do not believe this claim of yours is accurate.
What does this even mean? The statute they are filing this is under 18 U.S. Code § 2381. which states:
When you say they did not claim "election fraud", are you referring to a different U.S. Code under which they should have filed? If so, what Code is that?
How are to claiming all this? There is not a single mention of the word "contract" in the filing. Where in the filing are they claiming that the Constitution is a "contract" ?
All your further arguments are based on these claims which dont seem to hold up when checked against the filing.
In addition to the case itself, which involves treason and "violating oath of office" (which, surprise surprise, ties back in with this current post) they are also asking the SC to decide on two conflicting doctrines - Equitable maxim and Object principle of justice.
They are claiming that the Equitable maxim doctrine is being used to dismiss the case by the lower court even when the plaintiffs have standing and are claiming the violation of First Amendment which ensures that citizens cannot be restrained from their right to petition the Government for redress of their grievances.
This seems to be the crux of the problem faced by other patriots who had all their cases regarding various aspects of the elections dismissed not on their merits. This seems to be a mechanism the courts are using to avoid hearing cases, which exactly amounts to violation of the right to redress the grievances.
This aspect of the case by itself should be important to us, let alone the treason.
As far as I could see, their case has never been dismissed based on merits. This by itself would make one believe that there is merit to their claims and hence is not being touched by anyone. If you believe the case has been ruled based on the merits by a lower court, please link me the court order that does so.
It's very simple: If a person is elected, appointed, or hired to public office, then a DUTY arises to take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.
If said person fails to uphold that duty, then there MUST be a remedy.
In my mind, the remedy MUST be to lose any authority they would otherwise have, and be removed from office.
Of course, I do believe that such claim must be proven in a court of law, but to take the position that nothing at all should be done is what has put us into the current unacceptable position.
As for "legal minds," not 1 attorney in 10,000 had the fucking balls to file a single lawsuit against the tyrannical and unconstitutional usurpation of power and trampling of human rights during the Covid scam. So, please forgive us if we don't give a fuck what the "legal minds" think, since they have outted themselves as lazy cowards.
What you are saying is that you are fine with fighting lawlessness with lawlessness and that is antithetical to anything Q said. The ends justifies the means. This philosophy is how we got here.
There is no duty in the sense that it is actionable under some form of contract law or tort claim. It just isn't. No matter how mad you are that they did this, suing under these legal theories is just dumb. Because its non sensical and totally not legally viable. These guys have to know this, too. They are grifting off of it. The last 2-3 pages of their complaint are their 6 causes of action. Don't read the rest of what they wrote because it has no bearing on their causes of action. It is written specifically to capture your attention because it tells a story of egregious fuckery that occurred in the 2020 election and the aftermath leading to the electoral college certification. None of it relates to the 6 claims they make.
The fact of the matter that nobody is discussing is that the Electoral Count Act itself has better than 90% odds of being unconstitutional. It is antithetical to the plain language of the 12th amendment. That amendment requires the counting of the electors and provides no form of rejecting them by Congress. It is the state legislatures from those problem states who (1) had the power to fix the fuckery; and (2) had a duty to fix the fuckery. Those were not named in their lawsuit.
Well if the Brunson Case is complimentary to this, and Vice Versa, then what is YOUR malfunction???
Its amazing that this case is like a sacred cow to so many here. Such that anyone who doesn't immediately embrace it is personally skewered. This place is filled with analyzing and critiquing opinions/data and debating the merits or lack thereof. Except with this Brunson case. Nobody responds with an actual argument. It is the people who pointed out the lack of a cognizable claim in the suit that must be the problem apparently.
But there actually was a Claim, it was Lack of Performance in a Contract, which is also Breach of Contract....
The Fact that SCOTUS rejected it, should tell us that SCOTUS probably understood, just didn't want to get involved....
https://greatawakening.win/p/16amwDFHv8/x/c/4TsaJ83qzvU
I think this goes where I am trying to point you. I addressed this in a reply to u/bubble_bursts.
Ok, well the very first part where you are blatantly wrong, not just mistaken, but wrong, is that the Various Constitutions is ""Calling the Constitution a “contract” is more of a philosophical analogy than it is a legal argument."", there is NO Philosophical Analogy there, it is in fact recognized as a Valid Contract with Standing, although it is a Contract between the Various States and their Agent, the U.S. Govt....
Just as the State Constitutions are Valid Contracts between the State Governments and the various Villages, Towns, Counties, etc., of which the State Govt is their Agent, and so on and so on....
Then at the very TOP/BASE of it all, is the People....
But things got flipped when the U.S. Army Conquered and Subjugated, ALL the states in one felled swoop, gee, Thanks Lincoln....
My ONLY Point between this case and the Brunson Case, is this:: IF they got together, and combined both cases, in a LOGICAL MANNER, using reason and Critical thinking, they might be able to come up with a case that would stick, mainly because they SEEM to compliment each other....
nothing more than that....
It's not even an argument for or against anything, it's just an idea that I put out as a flat statement....
Not exactly the same. The Brunson case says they broke their oaths. This one says they didnt even take the oath. What if SCOTUS shelved the Brunson case because they knew these people didnt take the oath?
What IF they take Both Cases in tandem???
Precisely and you are correct.
Brunson's two cases hinge on government servants breaking their oaths while this makes a claim they do not have an oath on record to the respective offices that they serve.
So how can SCOTUS take a case claiming they broke an oath they never even took? I can definitely see this as being a two part op with one overall goal.
Agreed. I think both have merit, but the actual carrying out of these outcomes would rip the country in half. I’m guilty of wanting this to happen, to see all these criminal marched out in chains, but at what cost to keeping the country in one piece.
Correct. This is the crux of the problem humanity has been facing in general.
This is also why the Q team is letting the Evil take us all to the precipice.
Only at the precipice where people truly believe they are in the brink of destruction, will their selfish love for preservation kicks in at a gear high enough to open their mind to anything that can save them, including return of Trump. I believe these cases are lined up for that.
I find myself agreeing with you a lot.
Don't worry, you will be cured in due time! 🤣
Who ever said we WANTED to keep the mess in one piece???
Nope, we want the separations to happen, we Want the strife and chaos and fights to happen so we can finally lay to rest the idea that Leftists should be allowed to make any manner of decisions for the rest of the public....
In this way, we can finally destroy MOB RULE over Individual Rights, and it IS the only way for this to happen, through a hard line struggle, no Prisoners style....
Yes!! Exactly- the first thing that came to mind
u/#q3961
That's a good one.
just more rope to hang them with. i remember not too many years ago when nothing like this was happening at all. just endless clown world and almost everyone just going along with it. this is fuckin great people, savor every moment of it.
The real question is, for how long have the government being run by people without proper oath of office?
I remember people like David Straight etc saying that almost no one has oath of office, and demanding to see it is one way to take control of a situation.
I'm sure they've blown it off since they figured they could get away with it. I know there's been bullshit like swearing on something other than the bible for awhile.
Seeing the swamp fuckers taken down with this would be particularly sweet for those of us who have sworn. 😃
You're blowing my mind. I just loaded Straight's "Out Of Babylon" series onto a nerd stick for a friend yesterday. Now I feel like I need to re-watch it with fresh eyes and perspective.
This is like another Brunson level type thing going!
I can imagine this adding to the case.
Brunson Case: Government Officials not doing their job
This: Officials not taking correct oath of office, let alone doing their job.
Boy do I hope brother! This would be an extra nail in the coffin for sure.
Movie should start getting to the good part very soon.
IF they followed the law, then it solves much of the headache.
But they're lawless, they don't follow the constitution, and don't recognize it as law of the land. So, can peace officers remove them?
Make sure the peace officers have their oaths too. A friend of mine was accosted by a snarky census official recently and requested that she recite her oath. She stumbled and fumbled before fleeing. He should have charged her with false impersonation or something. Powerful stuff.
Remember the whole swearing in ceremony started before noon? I guess its part of the fakery.
Yes. Before the potato, and his was even at the wrong time
We have to thank all patriots including our lovely President Trump for doing this to save America and the world from the evil and gangsters and thank God above all for giving us the opportunity one more time. They risked their lives for us.
Going after their surety bond?
Do these people without an oath have it?
No idea
Brunson still in play?
We have to remove them. Now/
Didn’t Barr leave the administration in December of 2020? And, Didn’t Trump appoint someone else for the last month or so of his term? Who was that person? Or am I way off here?
the last election where the voting machines were certified (both software AND hardware) was 2016.
All elections since then were not legit.
Quo warranto does not apply to President or Vice President. Only impeachment can remove them. And the statute expressly excludes those offices.
It works like this: you can petition the US Attorney General setting forth the grounds of the application. The AG does not have to do anything. If the AG refuses to act, you can petition for leave of court to have the writ issued in the name of any licensed attorney who will then represent the United States in the proceeding. The court must be convinced that the basis in the application rests on sound law or they will not issue.
There is no such thing in our legal system where some type of permanent relief like this would be awarded in 10 days ex parte with no response necessary from the office holder claimed to be unlawfully holding office. This gets litigated.
Does anyone here actually think that these people would not simply cure a deficiency like that, if it is accurate that these aren’t on file? Does anyone here think these people are incapable of signing something like that because they hate the constitution so much they’d rather be removed? These people will do literally anything for power….
What would be far better would be to challenge any regulatory changes that these cabinet officials signed off on without being eligible for the office. Anything they did prior to filing these affidavits is null and void.
Only way to cure the deficiency is to take an oath of office, at which point their actions can be held accountable for their oath. My guess is that, these people believe they are immune from being prosecuted for treason simply because they are pretenders.
The object of the current action might infact be to force them to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
I said this in response to another comment: I think this concept is making a mountain out of a molehill. They are accountable for everything they did. The only reason accountability hasn't happened is that they also control the apparatus in charge of holding them accountable. The US Attorney's office is the only entity that can charge people with treason. No state can. And Garland is in charge of the US Attorney's office. Taking the oath of office, or failing to take the oath of office doesn't have an impact on violating the most severe statutes in the US code.
In the Civil War, we did not prosecute treason for reasons of wanting to restore the union. These were Americans, after all, and the war was fought to keep them Americans. Though there was great debate over the merits of doing so. With the confederate civilians, especially, they did not take any oath. If they provided aid and comfort to the enemy, they committed treason. Oath or no oath. And the same thing here. One does not need to expressly acknowledge loyalty/duty/allegiance to the United States to be held accountable for their acts against the United States.
The military can try soldiers, ex soldiers, and foreigners apprehended in foreign lands for violating laws of the United States. They can prosecute crimes that occurred on domestic military bases. But otherwise, the particular crime that you commit does not trigger a process that supersedes the constitution - which affords the 5th amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in the district in which the crime occurred. The right to due process. And to be tried by a jury of citizens in the state and district in which the crime occurred under the 6th amendment.
Until the DOJ is cleaned out, there will not be accountability. Taking or not taking an oath has zero impact on this. But it does render the official acts of those officers of the United States a nullity if they do not lawfully hold the office. So for this issue, the correct lawsuit to bring is a challenge to the validity of any act of a person acting under color of law that does not lawfully have the ability to exercise power.
Lets think about this hypothetical. Assume that none of these people were really part of the administration. They were all putting on a show. And the media was simply portraying the show as "real", and people (including law enforcement, judges etc) simply went along with the show because it looked convincing.
Who is culpable here? The actors? The media pretending its real? Or the people who fell for it?
Not easy questions.
I am not 100% sure I grasp what you’re asking so correct me if I am not answering the question.
Someone is doing all this crap. If it isn’t them because they are just acting, then I don’t know how you could consider them guilty of anything except acting. If they took an oath, how does that suddenly transform them from actors to perpetrators? The issue still remains who is actually doing the acts in question that are unlawful. That is the person guilty of the crime. One likely would need to know who hired them and what they were instructed to do and its underlying purpose before you could get any idea what level of culpability, if any, is there.
The media, in narrow circumstances, could be credibly charged with treason for pushing known bogus stories to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Fake news narratives aren’t necessarily aid and comfort. There needs to be intent, and the specifics of what they did need to fairly unambiguously support a finding of providing that aid and comfort. There is no bright line rule; it would be entirely fact dependent.
Getting duped isn’t a crime. Getting duped into a crime is not an excuse from accountability for the crime; but it might be a mitigating circumstance as to the sanction for being convicted of the crime.
This is the crux of what I am saying. If they took the oath of office, their actions has actual bearing beyond those of a mere actor. At the very least, the person who took the oath of office can be charged for breaking their oath.
The real question is actually whether there could be a reason for bringing this up (assuming this is real for a sec - we dont know if it is) when seen in light of Devolution/COG operation?
That answers the rest of your unasked question - what was the goal of the last few years with all these actors herding the humanity towards the abyss?
The answer was not just to expose one person or one group of people - the masterminds - who are evil and trying to destroy us. The problem humanity has been facing is far beyond any group of evil people. Its a systemic problem. We have created for ourself a system that can suck people into it and make people become part of the evil agenda without even realising it.
If exposing that was the real goal of this exercise, then it all makes sense. Its not so much about retribution as it is about Awakening.
If they remedy the problem with a signature, they are as trapped as if they were on Film saying the words....
I think everyone is making a mountain out of a molehill with this idea. I don't understand why people think that saying or not saying some oath has some impact on guilt or lack thereof. Like its a smoking gun or something. None of what these people have done magically is excused because they did NOT take an oath. Likewise, none of what these people have done has more severe consequences because they did take this oath.
The one thing it does mean is that whatever powers they have exercised while being ineligible for the office are a nullity.
It's called magical thinking. Cognitive dissonance. A way to keep the thing going so content can be created and possibly t-shirts get printed when memeworthy gaffes inevitably occur. C'mon man! This is why we are the most important part of the plan. We are the news. This is the battlefield. We were chosen for a reason. We get the comms and do our thing and then spread it to the normal people. WWG1WGA so nothing will be "null and void" as you say.
People I understand most of us believe its a movie. But I lost 3 friends to the jab , and the hospital covid protocols! Its not a movie they are killing our fellow Americans, enjoy the Fucking show! And I never plan on posting anything again. We all lose. Sit back and watch your life , and everything you worked for die. Next up the great dollar destruction act. After that it will be confiscation time for those taxes you could not pay, due to no money. Then its neighbor fight neighbor time, for the people that prepared.
If you had the choice of enslavement of billions, or the only way to free humanity is by incurring deaths of a fraction of those billions, which would you pick?
Honestly, I thank God every day that I am not put in the position to make that choice, instead of judging the actions of those who are.
Remember a few years ago the "trolley problem" was all the rage on the Internet? This is the ultimate trolley problem. There are not easy solutions.
I've lost people too fren and I'm genuinely sorry for your loss & I grieve with you.
War sucks.
I must agree fren. We are in a war, long started before the MSM started talks about WWIII. I believe the first skirmishes started when JFK was killed. It has very slowly been building. Our D-Day is on the horizon. The casualties, I believe, are still going to be happening until the final battle. WWG1WGA!!!
People die in movies all the time, sorry for your losses. I have lost two in the past two years myself. It would be easier for me if I were just starting out, in my 20's so as be able to adapt quickly to a dramatically changing world. Keep those dear to you close and put your worries on Gods shoulders for some peace of mind, works for me anyway. Nothing is forever in this world, nothing. I agree with Mudpuddleopie, the nick reminds me of when was a kid btw, hang in there.
We’ve all had dark days. Hang in there.
It isn't going to be easier as we inch closer to 2029 I will point this out explicitly for those not mentally ready. The globohomos are going throw everything they have including the kitchen sink.
I am intrigued by how few people are in Congress when in session. Have some of them already been arrested? What is the real reason behind the almost empty room?