"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.
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.