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.
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.
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.