Trying to think outside the box here.
If members of Biden's cabinet entered into office knowing they planned to act unconstitutionally, this would make a plausible assumption they were protecting themselves from future charges of treason by failing to submit a valid oath of office.
If you never submitted a official oath of office, you essentially have not taken a pledge to fulfill their duties to the office in a constitutional manner. It would be impossible to charge them with treason. However, it could be argued that these public officials owed us their loyalty and failed, could this be misprision of treason?
Q may have indicated there are other charges to convict them with.
Could all of these individuals who failed to submit a valid oath of office be forced to take a oath that is retroactive and if they fail to do so, then it is safe to say they know they were acting treasonously when they refuse to take a retroactive oath.
It appears that Lincoln administered a loyalty oath to prisoners of war after the civil war. It also seems that a retroactive clause was added is some situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath
We have 535 members in House and Senate. What if today, every member in the House and Senate today have failed to submit a valid oath of office. We may see many come forward and take a retroactive oath of office knowing that they have nothing to hide, however we may see many other who refuse because they know that treason charges may apply. They are immediately removed from office and prosecuted.
I guess I am wondering if there is a white hat plan that may be used in near future to weed out the bad from the good. The bad would refuse a retroactive loyalty oath and immediately create a red flag above their head.
What's your thoughts?
Stay safe my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
remember when everyone was saying "take the oath" hmmm flynn q and many more?
Ahh great memory fren, that makes alot of sense.
Watch the reactions. Watch for pushback. That will reveal much.
If they're an American citizen and actively work against the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Govt, and/or it's People, they can be tried for treason regardless of whether, or not, they have sworn their allegiance by reciting some oath.
Not having done so when they took their positions in the Admin doesn't change that fact. So, your comment about not being able to charge them with treason if they haven't sworn the Oath yet is invalid. Also, a retroactive swearing if the Oath is common practice, more so than a lot of people may know. So if it does turn out that a lot of "Biden's" Admin hasn't sworn the Oath yet, their actions can only be covered constitutionally if they take a retroactive Oath.
If, however, any of them refuse, then they can be removed from their positions, but not charged with treason, UNLESS it can be proven in a court of law that they were indeed acting against the interests of the U.S. Govt, the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. People, and there wouldn't be any legal recourse they could use to stop such a proceeding.
Yeah, can’t an ordinary citizen be charged with treason?
They can as long as it is treason against the United States. A good example would be any member of the media that supports this sorry excuse of an adminstration.
The American people can capture their bond for this. Once they lose bonding they're ineligible for any public office.
Giddy up
So why don’t we go ahead and capture the bonds of those that we know have, knowingly violated the constitution?
Exactly
You are correct, they would be treasonous however, getting a charge to stick would be difficult without a oath of office swearing loyalty to the Constitution.
I am no legal scholar but the reason I made that statement is because it was said by the attorney in my prior post, Todd Callander. Todd said, without the oath to office they may only get charged with impersonating a public official. Perhaps he was trying to gaslight us, who knows.
I think treason is very difficult to prosecute, several stipulations apply. If you pursued treason charges and didn't prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, the person could walk away free. Instead prosecute for a lesser charge where you have a better conviction probability.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
To be convicted of treason, prosecutors must prove that the defendant committed one of the two enumerated acts and did so with the "specific intent to betray" the United States. A person can only be convicted of treason on the testimony of two witnesses describing the same act or by the defendant's confession.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/federal-treason
Do you think the treasonous politicians are going to start standing in line to testify against each other. I don't.
In the link above there is a list of lesser crimes that treasonous politicians could be prosecuted for and in most instances, it would be reasonable to go for a lesser charge to guarantee a conviction.
Sedition, Rebellion/Insurrection, Advocating Overthrow of Government, Misprision of Treason
If you charge with treason and fail to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, they walk and can't be charged for the same crime twice.
I think if they were tried before a jury of their peers...yeah that's a done deal.
So any of the forgetful oath filing dodges can be covered by a “my bad”? Retroactive shouldn’t be an option.
than in Walton v. Hicks, (8) where the Court ruled:
This statute is emphatic and unequivocal. It does not seem possible that it can be misunderstood. In case a person appointed to office neglects to file his official oath within 15 [now 30] days after notice of appointment or within 15 [now 30] days after the commencement of the term of office, the office becomes vacant ipso facto. That is all there is to it. No judicial procedure is necessary; no notice is necessary; nothing is necessary. The office is vacant, as much so as though the appointee were dead; there is no incumbent, and the vacancy may be filled by the proper appointive power .
........................
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statute is personal to plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and the office became vacant by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or not the defendants knew or were chargeable with notice that plaintiff had failed to file his oath, and they are not required to make any declaration or give any notice. On his default in' filing his official oath "the appointment was vitiated and the office * * * became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex reI. Walton v. Hicks, infra].
Makes sense Brandon's official photo isn't in post offices across the country.
The explanation I’ve heard over the last couple of days is, if they haven’t taken the oath of office then they haven’t legally assumed the office and everything they have done is null and void. In addition to being guilty of treason.
THIS!
You can still charge, convict and execute them for crimes against humanity for Covid, Ukraine and murder.
I understand the Biden cabinet has no oath on file, but is there any evidence that the same is true of Congress? Weren't they all duly sworn in on Jan 3?
Or an actor playing politicians wouldn’t sign that
I had to look up what misprision meant (the deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony). That seems like a tough one to pursue. I think the retroactive clause is more doable (good dig).
I think it will easily apply to a number of lower-level operatives, i.e., a clown agent with a duty to report (or even official reviews where they are asked about relevant activity) but who didn't report as required. If they have it all, they'll have recordings of when they were informed.
jhartz39, you always give me something to think about with your high quality posts!
This is a very interesting idea
Does it make it easier to get rid of them?
Yes, they have broken the law, USC 5, 3332.
I may be wrong here, but every electee and every appointee has a swearing in when they assume public office. When I was hired as a federal employee, I did not have to swear an Oath, however the one I swore when I was active duty never expired(It may not be relevant in the eyes of the government, but it counts for me). All that being said, if I betrayed this country, you can bet the farm I would be convicted of Treason. So not having a signed Oath or even being sworn in makes no differenece. Treason is always a punishable offense.
The law, USC 5 3332, stipulates that a federal public official must swear an oath in writing complete with a date of appointment, and it must be notarized, not simply witnessed.
Excellent! Good information. They still have to verbally swear an oath when appointed or elected. As far as I'm concerned that is binding.
It would not be impossible to charge them with treason.
They KNEW they had to take the oath of office and they didn't bc they didn't want to be charged with treason.
Sorry, but they can still be charged with treason for acting against the USA. I don't buy this will keep them from being charged. But it may make them ineligible to serve
I can't find an oath of office scandal? Sauce, please?
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0n5cQg/attorney-todd-callander-w-sgt--b/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0n5Kym/breaking-federal-public-official/c/
With the corrupt two-tiered judicial system in America, we are going to have to forego civilian courts altogether and try them in a military tribunal. We have been shown over and over that all courts are tainted and will never prosecute members of the club. This must be what Q meant by The Military is the only way.
I was thinking, it would be a riot to find out a the judge hearing this case in the future was in violation of the oath of office. SGT report just covered it, I recommend it, I also recommend the Quite Frankly episode that proceeds it. Frank’s got one of the best pod casts out there.
I’ll posit the Good acted lawfully.
People in professions like teachers, politicians, government agencies, etc. need to take a polygraph test about intentions and ethics.
I know they're not 100% accurate, but the majority are.
They would just cheat and mass-produce the oaths and insert them on file! They would say they keep them in a particular place other than where people think they are kept! They're liars and cheaters!
The whole point of notarization is that the sworn statement can be confirmed with the notary, who is supposed to be an independent agent. Corrupt notary? Evil days.
When I heard about this, I immediately wondered about the Brunson case that has melted away. Methinks the two are related.
As a FORMER government employee and member of the military I will say that the majority of government workers DO take an oath of office, as does EVERYONE in the military. So, for people that are NOT doing their job, or aiding and abetting, they should all go to prison. They swore an oath and signed an agreement to "support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..." I raised my hand and swore that oath more times than I can remember.
It’s treason whether someone takes the oath or not.
Remember how Obama and the Chief Justice screwed up the wording when he was sworn in? They did it twice and still seemed off?
Only 2 answers. Treason or Enemy at war. Either way the end is similar
The charge of treason does not require a preliminary promise not to commit treason, just as a charge of murder does not require a preliminary promise not to commit murder.
It does raise the question of why the Senate did not insist on closure with respect to required oaths. It suggests that everyone was okay with the executive going totally "off the rails" with respect to adhering to the Constitution.
This sounds like another nothing burger like the case that they were trying to bring to SCOTUS about Congress not investigating fraud. Fool me 20 times or so, shame on me. Not going to get me again.
At the same time though, we should all be able to collectively discuss potential scenarios playing out without people feeling like they have been deceived. What we are going through is a process of elimination. If they story continues, you keep eliminating.
I have never read anything on this board and then afterwards felt like I was fooled when the outcome went in a different direction, I think its all about the frame of mind. I flow with continued optimism, others grab the pessimism.
Democrat administration.
Nothing will come of it.
Does anyone have a link to any official document/filing/affidavit? I haven’t seen one source yet other than some lady talking about it on video…
I don’t think an oath has anything to do with treason from a legal standpoint.
Just curious is this a one off or has other admin left it sloppy too
If they have not qualified for the office, but are acting like they did, then they are impersonating a public official.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0n5cQg/attorney-todd-callander-w-sgt--b/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0n5Kym/breaking-federal-public-official/c/