• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"



Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right
Welcome to the world of fiction!

The United States government and the state government and all of their agencies and subdivisions such as the city, county, boroughs and townships and banks are corporations. SEE, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) heading for "government." All corporations are fictions or artificial persons created under the authority of the law (SEE, Black's Law Dictionary, "corporations"), and all such corporate fictions are established by a set of rules called by-laws. Public (government) corporations use the term constitution as the name of their by-laws, which are nothing more than an offer to the people of the forum the government intends to use to govern.......................... The American private sector, although included within the offer, were never given the offer to officially vote for or against nor to make an official acceptance or rejection. Thus, no contract involving private Americans as a party to the Constitution exists. A contract, in the modern sense of the word, has been defined as an agreement containing a promise enforceable in law. The term "agreement" implies that there are at least two parties involved, since one party cannot agree to a proposition unless it is made to him by another party. The term further implies that one party proposed a promise or offer to which the other party agreed or accepted. Thus, an agreement is the result of an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other party which creates a binding contract.

<<<<<< SKIP >>>>>>

If you've been to court over any kind of issue, you have already seen that the Constitution is non-existent. A judge will tell you that Constitution doesn't mean anything in his/her court. The judge may even threaten you with a charge of 'contempt of court' when you even mention the Constitution. A Attorney/lawyer will tell you that they don't use the Constitution and the same is said by tax collectors and police officers. Well, they are just withdrawing the offer to you [the American private people] simply because you, we, the private sector, have never formally "accepted" their offer. Whether the offer is the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the state government corporation (a/k/a, "...this state") near where we live our private lives. Nor has the private sector ever formally accepted the oath of any government worker to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is required by the law [their law] upon taking office. It appears to be a "MUST" that we formally accept the constitutions as well as the oath of office of any public servant, i.e. government worker, that we may be forced to do business within their official capacity.

<<<<<< SKIP >>>>>>

.................Our private property has been taken by forced registration and recordation into [corporate] government records, which casts upon the private sector an onslaught of [corporate] government regulations and taxation. If the state government or any of its political subdivisions caused to be registered or recorded anyone's private property and then invokes its powers to regulate and tax the private property of one of the private sector, such action is a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . ."nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law."

But wait -- we are a party to the alleged constitution(s) - are we? What is the purpose of a [or any] constitution? Answer: to serve as a operations manual, operational guidelines, binds for those who choose to be "Public Servants." Remember your sovereign status - your consumer status - and unless [emphasis on "unless"] you have opted into being subject to something, the something doesn't have [legitimate] control over you. "Contracts make the law - all law is contract." Consider the 13th Amendment.

And here is the secret decoding -
it really doesn't matter what Constitution we're talking about -- the question to whomever -AFTER- duly [look up, "duly"] accepting their alleged constitution and oath ["to preserve, protect, and defend ... so help me God"] is: "Is there something by or through your alleged Constitution that compels My performance?" -- If yes, "...then please enter it into the record of this matter." If no, "...then what am I doing here? Is there some manner of contract that is controlling?" Can they show that you knowingly, willingly and voluntarily after full disclosure signed on to something that bears the other party's signature as well? (See, jurisdiction.)F.Y.I.: Any elected or appointed official or Attorney refusing to honor an acceptance of their Oath is simply impersonating a public official

[Texas] Penal Code 37.11 Impersonating a Public Servant - 3rd degree felony.
(mandate since 1935 from Washington is that all the state governments standardize their state rules, procedures and statutes. References given here use the Texas code, however there are equivalent sections in each of the other state rulebooks from which to derive similar authority)

One can also see, 18 USC Sec. 912, 01/03/95; EXPCITE:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 - FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec. 912. Officer or employee of the United States.

STATUTE: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See this and this for more information.


The following is a quote from a book called,
by Thomas James Norton, (1941), America's Future, Inc., publisher:

"In the Fifth Amendment the Nation is forbidden to deprive any one 'of life, liberty or property without due process of law'; and here the like command is issued by the people to the State. In the beginning it was National power that was feared. Experience later taught that the power of the State also may be tyrannical. Due process of law means, said the Supreme Court in a late case (1908), that 'no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles . . . which . . . protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government.'
Private property is taken, for public use in opening streets in cities, in constructing railways and canals, in erecting public buildings, in laying out public parks, and for kindred purposes. The owner cannot be deprived of his property for such purposes by the State without due process of law, that is, without a full hearing and adequate compensation."

Public versus Private

The next subject of importance is to learn to distinguish between public and private. The term "public" (adj.) in common meaning is sometimes used to refer to the entire population. In [the] strict legal sense the term "public" only applies to government political and municipal corporations and to no one else. Found in Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, page 1195, defining "private" as affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally, not official; not clothed with office. SEE, People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N. K 372, 373. In other words, if you are not in, or of, any office or government such as public school teacher, administrator, bank personnel at any level, police, fire officials or any type of city, county, state or federal government worker, military, - in other words, subject to the US constitution, then and only then are you a private citizen and a part of the private sector.

In regards to protecting oneself from "abusive" public servants: check out the [your] State laws on "stalking" and "exploitation" as well as "neglect to protect" provisions in State law [upholding and enforcing the law by parties under Oath of Office] as well as Title 18 USC §1621 concerning the "neglect to protect" by persons under Oath, and Title 42 USC § 1986, wherein a person having "knowledge of the law", "the power to stop a wrong" and the "duty to prevent a wrong from being done" is liable for any failure to act. Should they fail to prevent a wrong, having knowledge of the law, the power to prevent, and the legal or moral duty to prevent the wrong, which causes deprivations of your religious and/or civil rights or Liberties, suit can be brought for violations.

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln

"Bind down the Public officials with the chains of the Constitution" ---Thomas Jefferson

Thought: Jurisdiction can always be challenged on the grounds that the constitution states that ALL matters in LAW and EQUITY must be conducted in an Article III court. If this court is not an Article III court then the accused requests that the matter be transferred to an Article III court or dismissed with prejudice.

Ask the judge if he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution - he has to say yes.
If you ask the judge if he intends to conduct his duties in compliance with that oath, what can he possibly say but yes?
The judge knows if the court is an Article III court, but he is hoping you will not understand this or how to force him to comply with his oath of office.



Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right
Violating Oath

The subject I am bringing to the table is “why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?
This should be a non-partisan subject simply due to the fact this has been going on for long decades and both parties are guilty according to the law.
I have myself watched a slow and steady deterioration of personal freedom going on fourty years and the accumulation is IMHO about to reach a tipping point where those hard fought rights become meaningless.
The scales could be tipped back somewhat if the public had awareness that the oath has teeth and voiced expectation that it be taken seriously.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include:
(1) removal from office and;
(2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.



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).


Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sep 16, 2012
third cove on the right


Article 7 of the Texas Constitution provides that State officers must take an oath or affirmation before entering office. Most people know this already. But what many don't know is that before these officers can even take the oath, and before they can enter their duties of office, they are supposed to file a statement with the Secretary of State's office. This process is supposed to ensure that when they perform their official duties, in their official capacities as officers of the State, they are bound to the provisions of the oath they swear. It is also supposed to ensure that when they perform their official duties without first having sworn the oath, that they are then personally liable and open to prosecution for any actions they take outside their official capacity.

But minor details like that never bother lying STATE OF TEXAS agents. From past experience, I'd venture to say that almost any day of the week, in any city in the state, you can find some "official" who's never followed this law. You'd be amazed to discover how many of them have not filed their statements before taking their oaths. And you'd be astonished to discover that some of them have never filed a statement or taken an oath at all! Naturally, this means they are not bonafide STATE officers, and everything they do or have done is illegal and liable for prosecution.

That may appear to fix the problem on the surface, but what about all those court hearings the "judge" held while not under oath? Wouldn't that make all those "decisions" void, or at the least, reversible on appeal? Absolutely! The statement, followed by the oath - the correct oath down to a T - are not options, they are required, and without them, the trial and acts done and performed by the judge are null and void!



Briefly, § 30(1)(h) obligates a public official, whether elected or appointed, to
file an oath of office, within 30 days of the commencement or notification of his
The New York Courts have heard several cases pleading relief from a
direct reading of this section, yet all pleas have been to no avail. In each and
every case, the courts have read the clear and undisputed language of the
statute finding no latitude to permit any exceptions. This piece brings to light
the cases of the various office holders whose positions were properly declared
vacant by operation of law for non-compliance with the mandate to timely file
an oath of office.
We will probe why this law, with its seemingly harsh results,
is set so firmly into New York Law and whether such law and its consequences
should continue undisturbed.


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].