I haven't finished uploading all the oaths that I've received, but the vast majority of the California State Senate employees that I requested oaths for don't have oaths. Neither do 9 of the executives at the California Income Tax agency, and on February 1, 2024, the tax agency said they believed their unexecuted oaths were valid. There are a LOT of California public officials who don't have oaths, especially people who are registered with the BAR and people who are in executive positions: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=1608
No oath of office occurred because this was a fraudulent election. How many of the cabinet heads have dual citizenship, especially to Israel? That is why I say, anyone who seeks a government office, serves in our military, owns a business which wants to have a government contract/is receiving government funds federal, state or city must have only U.S. citizenship. One cannot have divided loyalties.
That the statute leads to an unambiguous reading is probably nowhere better
stated 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].
............
Cooper v. 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)
"All ten of these people do not have properly executed Oaths of Allegiance as (STD 689) as is required per Government Code sections 1360, 1362-1369 and Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California. Without a fully executed Oath, these people have been working for The State of California unlawfully and are considered foreign agents posing as government officials. Under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 912, this is a felony punishable with up to three years in federal prison.
Prima fascia evidence indicates that all ten of the Accused knowingly chose not to promise to uphold the laws of the state and federal constitutions. All of the Accused are/were upper management, and as was documented in the court case Christine N. Grab vs. The California Franchise Tax Board, many of them were overseeing the execution and/or cover-up of bona fide criminal schemes to overcharge taxpayers. It appears that evading Government Code sections 1360, 1362-1369 and Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California via improperly executed oaths is another facet of these criminal schemes."
5 U.S.C. 3331:
"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service...shall take the following oath: 'I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'"
,
5 U.S.C. 3333:
"...an individual who accepts office or employment in the government of the United States...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title."
.
5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):
"An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government..." ["advocate: to plead in favor of: defend by argument before a tribunal or the public; support or recommend publicly." Webster's Third New International Dictionary] ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both"
.
Executive Order 10450 (in part):
Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:
(a)The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment.. of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited to the following:
(4)Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means." [form: established method of expression or practice; fixed or formal way of proceeding; procedure according to rule or rote. Webster's Third New International Dictionary] (Italics and underlines added).
Again, thank you so much! You are making this complaint writing so much easier for me!!!! You have no idea how much I appreciate your helping me.
But I do have a question: I hadn't seen Eisenhower's EO before, but wasn't this deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court? I ask based on this gem that I'd found:
Jesson v. David (2002):
“…the California Supreme Court in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal. 2d 18 found paragraph 2 of the oath to be invalid under the United States Constitution. That is, it would violate the Constitution of the United States for California to require that language. Our high court concluded that two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, and Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 385 U.S. 589, compelled such a result.”
If it is State officials that you are after, then I would think you should use California's oath's and statutes.
EO's have authority in the United States only and for Federal citizens
United States = Washington DC and the 7 territories/ US citizen
United States of America = 50 states/ state citizen
.
.
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.
Thank you. The reason I dug up the Jesson v. David court case was because California's constitution has a second paragraph, and none of the oaths I received had that second paragraph. I did some digging to find out why. Since I am fighting California corruption, I have mostly focused on CA laws, but since I have been wrestling in the swamp, I throw in some federal statutes sometimes, too. :)
OK but the nickname doc for doctor is unrelated to the word dock, and the words birth and berth are unrelated.
(Currency doesn't come from current + sea, either. :) IMHO the whole maritime thing is up for grabs, lacking any credible final word on what things really do mean. Like the fringe on the flag. It's always claimed to mean maritime law. But since there's zero chance flag-loving Trump doesn't know the real meaning, and he has it onstage with him all the time, the most logical conclusion is it's merely meaningless decoration, and Trump famously likes lots of gold decoration.
I can't find a definitive impartial source stating that merely using the UPPER CASE of the letters used to spell your name, instead of using mostly lowercase letters, has the power to turn you into a non-human slave of a maritime world government. Has the relative size of the letters of the alphabet been granted that power? So far it is still questionable.
ALL CAPS lettering creates a corporation with your name and when they drag you into court, you are the CEO of the corporation..
Recognize at the outset that you are dealing with a bunch of criminals who have abandoned their responsibilities as agents of the people by vacating the government and becoming a corporation to advance the commercial interests of the world. They attempt to make a corporation out of you, too, by writing your Christian appellation in all-capital letters which is a clear prejudice against you, according to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TCRP) Rule 52, Alleging a Corporation:
"Allegations that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as Truth unless denied by affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or his attorney, whether such corporation is public or private and however created."
Take note of the words "however created" because when those attorneys write your name in all-capital letters on a summons or warrant or notice, you have now been constituted as a corporation. Your name was similarly corrupted when a constructive trust was established as you volunteered into Social Security, making you part of the national socialist democracy and assigning you an employee I.D. number (SSAN). TCRP Rules 53 and 54 affirm the notion that if someone alleges that you are a corporation and you do not deny it in a timely manner, you are a indeed a corporation for the commercial matter in question.
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
================
Let make that a little less confusing to read...
.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals, unless the context indicates otherwise—
.
now think about that little tax form called '1040 EZ INDIVIDUAL'
Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous)
v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
Before I started doing my own legal work to fight government corruption, I didn't see the connection, either. But now I understand (by learning the hard way) that statutory law is all about deception via precise wording and distortions of wording so that people think it says one thing when it really means something else altogether.
Check out https://thepeoplesoperationrestoration.com for more information about the corporation capital letter slavery system that was imposed on the United States by the parasite class, and how Trump fits into it all.
I haven't finished uploading all the oaths that I've received, but the vast majority of the California State Senate employees that I requested oaths for don't have oaths. Neither do 9 of the executives at the California Income Tax agency, and on February 1, 2024, the tax agency said they believed their unexecuted oaths were valid. There are a LOT of California public officials who don't have oaths, especially people who are registered with the BAR and people who are in executive positions: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=1608
And no one in California is bonded, which means the entire California government is illegitimate: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=2219
Can you please direct to how these requests are made?
I assume it varies by state, but to get a general idea.
This is all California specific, but it will give you the gist of how you do it: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=1472
edit 2: I've updated the post to include a sample request letter.
Thanks!
We must remember that these creatures have no regard for the Constitution or oaths of office-to them, they are just a bunch of words... 😒
No oath of office occurred because this was a fraudulent election. How many of the cabinet heads have dual citizenship, especially to Israel? That is why I say, anyone who seeks a government office, serves in our military, owns a business which wants to have a government contract/is receiving government funds federal, state or city must have only U.S. citizenship. One cannot have divided loyalties.
Being Muslim and oath taking is a whole different ball of wax and we have a few in government.
Some Latin American countries have default dual citizenship as well.
That the statute leads to an unambiguous reading is probably nowhere better stated 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].
............
Cooper v. 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)
Thank you so much for this. I am getting ready to file another complaint, and I will be adding this to the complaint!
why would they have no oath of office? Does this protect them from being charged with something while in office if they do not take the oath?
Yes, treason of oath is punishable with death. Not taking an oath is punishable with three years in prison.
Edit to add an excerpt from a claim I filed against the California income tax agency: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?p=2073
"All ten of these people do not have properly executed Oaths of Allegiance as (STD 689) as is required per Government Code sections 1360, 1362-1369 and Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California. Without a fully executed Oath, these people have been working for The State of California unlawfully and are considered foreign agents posing as government officials. Under Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 912, this is a felony punishable with up to three years in federal prison.
Prima fascia evidence indicates that all ten of the Accused knowingly chose not to promise to uphold the laws of the state and federal constitutions. All of the Accused are/were upper management, and as was documented in the court case Christine N. Grab vs. The California Franchise Tax Board, many of them were overseeing the execution and/or cover-up of bona fide criminal schemes to overcharge taxpayers. It appears that evading Government Code sections 1360, 1362-1369 and Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California via improperly executed oaths is another facet of these criminal schemes."
5 U.S.C. 3331: "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service...shall take the following oath: 'I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'" ,
5 U.S.C. 3333: "...an individual who accepts office or employment in the government of the United States...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title." .
5 U.S.C. 7311 (1): "An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government..." ["advocate: to plead in favor of: defend by argument before a tribunal or the public; support or recommend publicly." Webster's Third New International Dictionary] ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both" .
Executive Order 10450 (in part): Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:
(a)The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment.. of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited to the following:
(4)Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means." [form: established method of expression or practice; fixed or formal way of proceeding; procedure according to rule or rote. Webster's Third New International Dictionary] (Italics and underlines added).
Again, thank you so much! You are making this complaint writing so much easier for me!!!! You have no idea how much I appreciate your helping me.
But I do have a question: I hadn't seen Eisenhower's EO before, but wasn't this deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court? I ask based on this gem that I'd found:
Jesson v. David (2002):
“…the California Supreme Court in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal. 2d 18 found paragraph 2 of the oath to be invalid under the United States Constitution. That is, it would violate the Constitution of the United States for California to require that language. Our high court concluded that two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, and Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 385 U.S. 589, compelled such a result.”
If it is State officials that you are after, then I would think you should use California's oath's and statutes.
EO's have authority in the United States only and for Federal citizens
United States = Washington DC and the 7 territories/ US citizen
United States of America = 50 states/ state citizen
.
.
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.
Thank you. The reason I dug up the Jesson v. David court case was because California's constitution has a second paragraph, and none of the oaths I received had that second paragraph. I did some digging to find out why. Since I am fighting California corruption, I have mostly focused on CA laws, but since I have been wrestling in the swamp, I throw in some federal statutes sometimes, too. :)
OK but the nickname doc for doctor is unrelated to the word dock, and the words birth and berth are unrelated.
(Currency doesn't come from current + sea, either. :) IMHO the whole maritime thing is up for grabs, lacking any credible final word on what things really do mean. Like the fringe on the flag. It's always claimed to mean maritime law. But since there's zero chance flag-loving Trump doesn't know the real meaning, and he has it onstage with him all the time, the most logical conclusion is it's merely meaningless decoration, and Trump famously likes lots of gold decoration.
I can't find a definitive impartial source stating that merely using the UPPER CASE of the letters used to spell your name, instead of using mostly lowercase letters, has the power to turn you into a non-human slave of a maritime world government. Has the relative size of the letters of the alphabet been granted that power? So far it is still questionable.
ALL CAPS lettering creates a corporation with your name and when they drag you into court, you are the CEO of the corporation..
Recognize at the outset that you are dealing with a bunch of criminals who have abandoned their responsibilities as agents of the people by vacating the government and becoming a corporation to advance the commercial interests of the world. They attempt to make a corporation out of you, too, by writing your Christian appellation in all-capital letters which is a clear prejudice against you, according to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TCRP) Rule 52, Alleging a Corporation:
"Allegations that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as Truth unless denied by affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or his attorney, whether such corporation is public or private and however created." Take note of the words "however created" because when those attorneys write your name in all-capital letters on a summons or warrant or notice, you have now been constituted as a corporation. Your name was similarly corrupted when a constructive trust was established as you volunteered into Social Security, making you part of the national socialist democracy and assigning you an employee I.D. number (SSAN). TCRP Rules 53 and 54 affirm the notion that if someone alleges that you are a corporation and you do not deny it in a timely manner, you are a indeed a corporation for the commercial matter in question.
I understand your statement about capital letters and that saying 'You are a corporation' makes you one.
I just don't know that it's absolute truth that simply stating these things makes them true, or if rather they are postulates.
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 1
================
Let make that a little less confusing to read...
. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress the words ‘person’ and ‘whoever’ include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals, unless the context indicates otherwise—
.
now think about that little tax form called '1040 EZ INDIVIDUAL'
Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous)
v adj. Latin for "of the same kind," used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
.
Before I started doing my own legal work to fight government corruption, I didn't see the connection, either. But now I understand (by learning the hard way) that statutory law is all about deception via precise wording and distortions of wording so that people think it says one thing when it really means something else altogether.
Check out https://thepeoplesoperationrestoration.com for more information about the corporation capital letter slavery system that was imposed on the United States by the parasite class, and how Trump fits into it all.
think about that- But how many states and people have sworn allegiance to Israel and hate speech? Israel First in the USA, instead of America first