Totaly Lost Going To Jail

[David Merrill]

There is a presumption being made. And even if they did; it is wise to validate the specific oath for that official. Especially with judges. In theory all you need to do is get the oath validated and you have set up a court of record - competent judicial jurisdiction.

Maybe that is why getting that administrator to validate his or her oath is like pulling teeth:

In the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado

United States district courthouse Registered Mail # RA xxx-xxx-xxx US
1929 Stout Street – A105
Denver, Colorado.
[80293]



Mandatory Judicial Notice

Petitioner v. Respondent; Case # 05-X-XXXX



“Judge” (Magistrate’s Name) is to validate his oath of office with whoever administered the oath and place a certified copy of that same oath in this case jacket within ten (10) days of this notice so that either party can authenticate that this is an Article III judiciary according to the Constitution of the United States by purchasing a certified copy of the oath from the court clerk.



Hereby ordered xx/xx/xx by THE COURT

This suitor inquired on May 2. John Suthers had to quit his post as district attorney (4th Judicial District) early after running a vacant office for eight years - the day after I filed his local oath and a Certificate of Fact from the Secretary of State:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elec...2001_const.pdf
from State Constitutions

See Article XII; §§8-10

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members
of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law
exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and
subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United
States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of
the office upon which he shall be about to enter.
Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department
and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall
file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall
file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall
have been elected.
Section 10. Refusal to qualify - vacancy. If any person elected or
appointed to any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the
time prescribed by law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

And this recent article of interest:

[David Merrill]

Added to above post:

NYS Legislature Concurs---No Oath, No Office; Amends Law
.................................................. .................................................. .......................

The verdict is in.

Town justices across the state were indeed illegally performing judicial duties including sending people to jail without having legal title to the office.

No oath, no office.

The Empire Journal and NYS Oaths Project have been successful in forcing the state Legislature and Office of Court Administration to admit that judges and justices across the state were in gross non-compliance of the law, prompting the Legislature to address the issue with new legislation to try and stave off a rash of litigation of challenges to decisions made by black robed imposters.

But it was all done very hush-hush.

A year ago this week, very quietly the New York State Legislature validated the work of the New York State Oaths Project, confirming not only that state law requires town and village justices to file their oaths of office and undertakings in three locations as the Oaths Project has advocated since 2003, but that if they hadn’t done so not only did they vacate their office but that their actions performed before filing their official oath and/or undertaking were invalid.

If the justices were not in office legally, they were not entitled to collect a salary and benefits from the taxpayers.

It’s not just a technicality as many had claimed.

On Aug. 17, 2004, Gov. George Pataki signed into law Chapter 406 of the Laws of 2004, legitimizing the work of the New York State Oaths Project which had exposed an epidemic of non-compliance in the state court system resulting in illegal judges and justices sitting in the state’s courts, from the town courts all the way to the Court of Claims and Court of Appeals which gives serious doubt to the validity of their decisions.

In fact, it was found that even members of the judiciary who were members of the state’s judicial watchdog agency, the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, were illegally in office, having vacated the position by operation of law for failing to comply with the state Constitution and statutes in not properly filing their oath and bond.

June Maxam, Oaths Project coordinator and co-publisher of The Empire Journal, was assisted in the project surveying the 62 counties of the state by Ginger Berlin, TEJ co-publisher; Geneice Hovak and Thomas Chandler of the NYS Tyranny Response Team. http://www.trt-ny.org/The_NYS_Oaths_Project.htm and http://www.judicialaccountability.or...athproject.htm

In June, 2004, TEJ, TRT and the NYS Constitution Party sponsored the Rally to Rein in the Judges on the steps of the Capitol in Albany. Maxam and Berlin also presented a Platform of Judicial Reform to Helene E. Weinstein, chairwoman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and John A. DeFranciso, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Earlier in 2004, Maxam, Berlin and Hovak hand delivered a 400-page report on the findings of the Oaths Project to the office of Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

The survey revealed that over 90% of the state’s judiciary were illegally in office, illegally plucking a paycheck and benefits from the taxpayers of New York totally without lawful authority with absolutely no jurisdiction to sit in judgment of individuals charged in violating the law, to send people to jail and make decisions that forever impacts the lives of others.

In fact, with the action taken a year ago by Pataki and the State Legislature, it has now been confirmed as advocated by the Oaths Project that prior to Aug. 17, 2004, official acts performed by judges and justices who had failed to file their official oath and/or undertaking were invalid as without proper title to the office, they could not claim to be de facto officers. One must first be a de jure officer before he can claim to be a de facto officer.

Maxam found that alarmingly most town and village justices in the state were acting unlawfully themselves, having failed to take and file both their oaths of office with the clerk of their county and in many cases, so are the county sheriffs and district attorneys as well as other public officers.

State law is very emphatic that public officers which include all town and village justices, city court judges and county judges must file their oaths of office and their surety bonds with the county clerk within 30 days of the commencement of their term or they have vacated their office. No hearing is required, no judicial proceeding is necessary, the office is automatically vacant due to the officer’s neglect or refusal to file. No excuses are accepted—no oath, no office.

The work of the Oaths Project was validated by the state Office of Court Administration when they issued memorandums in June and December, 2003, advising all town and village justices statewide that they had to file their oath of office and bond in the county clerk’s office or else they would vacate their office. Most justices had failed to do so in violation of the Uniform Justice Court Act.

The Uniform Justice Court Act requires that a town and village justice, as well as their court clerks, must file their original oath and bond in the county clerk’s office with copies of their oath filed with their municipal clerk (town or village clerk) and the Office of Court Administration.

Many of the justices and towns which they served insisted that filing their oath in the office of their municipal clerk and with OCA was sufficient.

Not so, said the state Legislature.

Public Officers Law 30 is emphatic that an office becomes vacant by operation of law if a public officer, including a judge, fails to file his properly file his oath and bond in the requisite places within 30 days of the beginning of his or her term.

Chapter 406 clarified the procedure for filing a town and village justice’s oath and undertaking, affirming the Oaths Project’s position that town justice must file in three places—the town or village clerk (Town Law 25); the county clerk (UJCA 104) and OCA (POL 3).

The new law left untouched the provisions of Public Officers Law 30 which provides for a vacancy in office after 30 days if the oath and undertaking are not properly filed.

Chapter 406 also clarified the common practice of municipalities procuring blanket bonds, also known as undertakings, as it pertains to town justices. New language was added to Town Law 25 stating that as of Aug. 17, 2004, town justices do not need to obtain an additional or separate undertaking where the town board has procured a blanket undertaking . If the town board does not procure a blanket undertaking---which the Oaths Project found was the case in many towns in the state, then each justice must procure their own undertakings which must then be properly filed in accordance with all three statutes---Town Law, UJCA and POL.

This position by the State Legislature again reaffirmed and supported the position of the Oaths Project.

The new law also amended Public Officers Law Section 15 “to validate a town justice’s official acts performed before filing the official oath and/or undertaking”.

The new law, Chapter 406, Laws of New York, 2004, which took effect Aug. 17, 2004, is as follows:

AN ACT to amend the town law and the public officers law, in relation to the duty of public officers to file an oath of office

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The process of validating an oath, if not required with the SoS, is to get the official to do it. Note how John Suthers went to the person who administered the oath and got written validation from her. THEN he put it into the SoS office. That is the proper validation (self-validation). Try that first. If that fails then the hearsay - you finding the oath will have to do. But even then if the official will not validate his or her oath; abate upon that. You have no cause to get persecuted in a non-judicial forum!

[David Merrill]

Note the last paragraph on this Order and Decree:

Weld county clerk sticker Weld combined courts filed stamp





Teller county clerk sticker Teller combined courts filed stamp

Order and Decree

Notice to County of Weld and County of Teller. The “Judicial Department” of the State of Colorado is incapable of superseding "municipal and police courts" according to the State of Colorado constitution – Article VI. My Refusal for Cause regarding advances of a County of Weld deputy sheriff was made plain and immediate and I can prove this with both testimony of the deputy sheriff and my traveling companion at the time (Sunday morning, 2/13/05). However in accord with the State of Colorado constitution the clerk of the county court has denied me my right to a probable cause hearing wherein we may examine the appropriateness of the officer's subsequent advances after I refused for cause his initial presentment. I have a witness to the clerk's denial of my absolute right to due course, the clerk saying my case, in which I was taken into custody at gunpoint was "too trivial" a matter to schedule a probable cause hearing.

Therefore I ORDER and DECREE this matter be remanded directly to the State district court residing in the County of Weld, a court of record according to the State of Colorado Constitution and a probable cause hearing quickly be scheduled only allowing time for me to get the deputy sheriff and my witnesses (and of course allowing time for the Sheriff and his counsel to summon testimony) summoned. Stipulated this probable cause hearing must be prior to any proper arraignment in either County. The fiasco (and I have electronic recording and witnesses) of the First Appearance Center "appearance" (County of Teller on x/xx/05) wherein I was forced to sign papers by an attorney, was at best initiated by 'fruit of the poison tree' which will be proven by the transcripts of the probable cause hearing hereby ordered.

The State district court in County of Weld is hereby notified at least ten days prior to the probable cause hearing that I will be hiring my own professional transcriber and court reporter for the hearing. Because of the municipal slant already inherent in the prosecution I am exercising my right to have an accurate record of the proceeding.

All effected courts in County of Teller and County of Weld, cases XXXXXX and XXXXXX respectively are notified that all actions are stultified until I have my probable cause hearing in an authorized court of record. I will be appearing restricted under Rule E(8) under the provisions for the district courts in these united States of America to correct the record of what is being presumed happened that morning.

Also, deputy xxxxxx took from my vehicle, where I was hiding it from him under the carpeting of my van, a State of Colorado issued ID/Driver License which I had signed "Barry Carmin dba BARRY CARMIN KRIEGER". There are still many "points" left on this driver license card and I never intended to use it that morning, much less for it to be stolen by a "law enforcement" officer. I would like that exact same card returned to me at the probable cause hearing. I tendered non-negotiable Federal Reserve Notes for it and albeit maybe considered State property, there was no cause for that theft. Both the probable cause hearing and this demand for the Driver License are orders to show cause.

The County of Weld State district court is ORDERED to contact me at (719) xxx-xxxx or by properly sealed mailed notice to the exact address seen below my signature with the date, time and location of the probable cause hearing. Failure to notify me of a probable hearing will result in my presumption this entire matter has been vacated by all effected courts. Any and all claims by either county or the state will be considered abandoned as of the time of this notice until properly vitalized by offering my right of ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE through a probable cause hearing. I truly believe that I have an absolute right to have this matter heard in a court of record where the probable cause hearing as a matter of custom is extant.

All oaths of office are considered sworn and in place (duly filed) at the time of the incident considered, according to the US and State constitutions. Be forewarned that lacking these oaths duly filed by any and all players this matter is decreed null and void from its inception.

This writ was commissioned by the same suitor who visited the Secretary of State and put John Suthers' confession he is running a vacant office (by the New York article, is validation he had only thirty days - not ninety).


Regards,

David Merrill.

[D.Dog]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Added to above post:





Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. The process of validating an oath, if not required with the SoS, is to get the official to do it. Note how John Suthers went to the person who administered the oath and got written validation from her. THEN he put it into the SoS office. That is the proper validation (self-validation). Try that first. If that fails then the hearsay - you finding the oath will have to do. But even then if the official will not validate his or her oath; abate upon that. You have no cause to get persecuted in a non-judicial forum!

O.K

Now this is something Merril,

Very Nice,

Update for ya.

What is SoS

I have sucessfully avoided having to go to court on the 29th which will buy me sometime.

Was speaking to Weis on phone a little while ago.

I have decided to pusue a Negotiation Strategy suggeted.
Now they are going to mail me a new contract and I will change and or ommit the offensive and accusatory( specifically the term "WILFULLY") language and some monetary items.

Sending it iron clad by using a 3rd partymailer, U.S postal certified, file, record and Clerk stamped, and on top of that since I have good raport with some girls at a shipping store I will ask them to also to place a postal Stamp on the docs.

What do ya think?

Also I understand the Gists of having the judges oath in office.
But why would I go get the oath and place it for them?
i am definitaly missing something there but if i could find out if the original Judges oath was not recorded properly I could move to have every thing from the begining thrown out and start fresh with just my Ex- wife and know state interference. Right? MMMM

SoS = Secretary of State.

Henry Franklin

[Jerseee]

I have searched the net for “Imprisonment of debts” for all of the 50 states. Some I found and some I could not. But the point is look at what the people charged the government to do and what not to do. Remember, the constitution (whether US wide or individual state) is meant for government to follow—not for people to follow. People wrote it and will honor it. Also, check out how some are written and this should enforce the thinking of sovereignty from state to state. They all take oaths to their respective states--hold them to their oath!!!

Hope this helps


Alabama
SECTION 20
Imprisonment for debts.
That no person shall be imprisoned for debt.

Alaska
§ 17. Imprisonment for Debt
There shall be no imprisonment for debt. This section does not prohibit civil arrest of absconding debtors.

Arizona
Section 18. There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud.

Arkansas
Sec. 16. Imprisonment for debt.
No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud.

California
SEC. 10. Witnesses may not be unreasonably detained. A person may
not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime
for a militia fine.

Colorado
Article II
12. No Imprisonment for Debt.

Connecticut
???? not found

Delaware
???? not found

Florida
Article I
SECTION 11. Imprisonment for debt.--No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.


Georgia
Paragraph XXIII. Imprisonment for debt. There shall be no imprisonment for debt.

Hawaii
Section 19. There shall be no imprisonment for debt. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]

Idaho
SECTION 15. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT PROHIBITED. There shall be no imprisonment for debt in this state except in cases of fraud.

Illinois
Sec. 14. No person shall be imprisoned for debt unless he refuses to
deliver up his estate for the benefit of his creditors as
provided by law unless there is a strong presumption of
fraud. No person shall be imprisoned for failure to pay a
fine in a criminal case unless he has been afforded adequate
time to make payment, in installments if necessary, and has
willfully failed to make payment.

Indiana
Section 22. The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life, shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability hereafter contracted: and there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud.

Iowa
Imprisonment for debt. SEC. 19. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud; and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.

Kansas
§ 16. Imprisonment for debt. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.

Kentucky
Section 18
Imprisonment for debt restricted.
The person of a debtor, where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.

Louisiana
???? not found


Maine
???? not found

Maryland
???? not found

Massachusetts
Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel, at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

Michigan
§ 21 Imprisonment for debt.
Sec. 21.
No person shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on contract, express or implied, except in cases of fraud or breach of trust.

Minnesota
Sec. 12. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT; PROPERTY EXEMPTION. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in this state, but this shall not prevent the legislature from providing for imprisonment, or holding to bail, persons charged with fraud in contracting said debt. A reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability. The amount of such exemption shall be determined by law. Provided, however, that all property so exempted shall be liable to seizure and sale for any debts incurred to any person for work done or materials furnished in the construction, repair or improvement of the same, and provided further, that such liability to seizure and sale shall also extend to all real property for any debt to any laborer or servant for labor or service performed.

Mississippi
Sec. 30. There shall be no imprisonment for debt.

Missouri
Section 11. That no person shall be imprisoned for debt, except for nonpayment of fines and penalties imposed by law.

Montana
Section 27. Imprisonment for debt. No person shall be imprisoned for debt except in the manner provided by law, upon refusal to deliver up his estate for the benefit of his creditors, or in cases of tort, where there is strong presumption of fraud.


Nebraska
Imprisonment for debt prohibited; exception.
CI-20 No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any
civil action on mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud.

Nevada
Sec: 14. Exemption of property from execution; imprisonment for debt. The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure or sale for payment of any debts or liabilities hereafter contracted; And there shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of fraud, libel, or slander, and no person shall be imprisioned [imprisoned] for a Militia fine in time of Peace.

New Hampshire
??? not found

New Jersey
13. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment found upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.

New Mexico
Sec. 21. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action.

New York
??? not found

North Carolina
Sec. 28. Imprisonment for debt.
There shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State, except in cases of fraud.

North Dakota
Section 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt unless upon refusal to deliver up his
estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law; or in cases of tort; or where there is strong presumption of fraud.

Ohio
§ 1.15 No imprisonment for debt (1851)
No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud.

Oklahoma
Section II-13: Imprisonment for debt.
Imprisonment for debt is prohibited, except for the non-payment
of fines and penalties imposed for the violation of law.

Oregon
Section 19. Imprisonment for debt. There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.—

Pennsylvania
Insolvent Debtors
Section 16.
The person of a debtor, where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.

Rhode Island
Section 11. Relief of debtors from prison. -- The person of a debtor, when there is not strong presumption of fraud, ought not to be continued in prison, after such person shall have delivered up property for the benefit of said person's creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law.

South Carolina
Sec. 19. No person shall be imprisoned for debt except in cases of
fraud.

South Dakota
Article 6.
§ 15. Imprisonment for debt. No person shall be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded upon a contract

Tennessee
Section 18. The Legislature shall pass no law authorizing imprisonment
for debt in civil cases.

Texas
Section 18 - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.

Utah
Sec. 16. [No imprisonment for debt. Exception.] There shall be no imprisonment for debt except in cases of absconding debtors.

Vermont
???? not found

Virginia
???? not found

Washington
SECTION 17 IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in cases of absconding debtors.

West Virginia
???? not found

Wisconsin
Imprisonment for debt. SECTION 16. No person shall be
imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on a contract,
expressed or implied.

Wyoming
97 1 005. Imprisonment for debt.

No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.

Jerseee, WOW.

Good work bro!


Henry Franklin

[mr.yet]

WEST'S ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND ADOPTED BY CONVENTION OF 1867
ARTICLE III. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
§ 38. Debt not ground for imprisonment


No person shall be imprisoned for debt, but a valid decree of a court of competent jurisdiction or agreement approved by decree of said court for the support of a spouse or dependent children, or for the support of an illegitimate child or children, or for alimony (either common law or as defined by statute), shall not constitute a debt within the meaning of this section.

Just information for you. debt no, support yes, Maryland in my opinion s--ks

mr.yet

[D.Dog]

[

I found an article.

Though this refers mostly to elected judges it also applies to appointed officials, officers, and and the like.

I am going to find out if the judge who granted my divorce in the first place had his oath properly filed with the State and County.

The article below does not mention what or if Terris' parents pursued vacating
all of Judge Greers judgments concerning the case.

My guess thier attorney talked them out of it because he would get dis-barred


Editorial

Judge In Schiavo Case Failed To Legally Qualify For Office; Discharge Mandated

Is George Greer playing God?

Or is he playing judge?

Public records indicate he’s no judge.

It appears that there is solid legal ground to move to vacate not only George Greer’s latest decision of Oct. 22 but all decisions that he has made in the Terri Schiavo case.

Florida’s Sixth Circuit Court judge George Greer has refused to order a new trial in the case of Terri Schiavo, instead violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of church and state.

And it appears he may be well aware of that constitutional violation as he has ordered that the feeding tube for the severely brain damaged woman remain in until at least Dec. 6 to allow attorneys for her parents to appeal his ruling.

Greer said in his decision that Terri Schiavo “has a right and she has had a right to have her constitutional rights implemented”.

But then Greer has also ruled that her feeding tube be removed which would cause her death.

She has also has a right to have a judge making life and death decisions that has the legal authority and jurisdiction to do so.

It appears that George Greer does not.

In order to qualify for office, judicial candidates must take and file an oath of office before being elected.

According to public records and state statutes, George Greer did not legally qualify for his current term of office and has no legal authority to sit on the case or issue any decisions.

Florida law is explicit that any person who fails to take the required oath shall be immediately discharged, his name removed from the state payroll and not permitted to receive any compensation.

Greer can’t claim that he is a “de facto” officer because he never had title to the office. His name shouldn’t have even been on the ballot according to the records provided by Florida’s Department of State.

Thus the question can be and should be legally raised if Greer has had jurisdiction in any of the adverse rulings affecting Terri Schiavo. Are all of his decisions null and void.

According to rulings by the Attorney General’s office, statutory and case law, Greer has never qualified for office to gain access to the ballot, failing to file the mandatory oath of office, therefore he was not legally elected.

And even though election officials improperly allowed him access to the ballot, he still failed to comply with the statute which requires him to file his oath of office within 30 days of the commencement of his term.

According to the Department of State, the last oath on file for George Greer is dated Aug. 7, 1998. Although the Division of Elections says that Greer qualified for office on May 3, 2004, to date they have not been able to produce a copy of his oath of office that was presumably filed in order to qualify.

The copy of the 1998 oath that they have produced for Greer is not in the proper form as required by statute which automatically disqualified him from the 1998 election. By law, his name should not have been on the ballot and therefore, he allegedly illegally served a six-year term as a judge and unlawfully collected compensation for the position.

Isn’t impersonating a judge a crime?

The oath signed by Greer on Aug. 7, 1998, and accepted by the Secretary of State’s office states “I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and State of Florida, and that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Judge of the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial District, Group 18”.

However, according to a 1996 opinion issued by Robert A. Butterworth, then Florida Attorney General, the form of the oath prescribed in Section 876.05 of Florida Statutes.


The Attorney General ruled that the statute is applicable to all employees and elected officers of the state, including judicial officers.

“The oath is a prerequisite to qualify for public office”, the opinion states. “Any candidate who fails or requires to file the requisite oath will have failed to qualify as a candidate for public office and the name of such person shall not be printed on the ballot as a qualified candidate……..The provisions are mandatory and binding on all officers”.

George Greer did not comply with the law, failed to file the proper oath, did not qualify for office, was not a qualified candidate and does not and has not legally held the title of judge of the Sixth Circuit Court.

Florida law states that if any person required to take the mandated oath fails to execute same, the governing authority under which such person is employed shall cause that person to be immediately discharged and his name removed from the payroll.

Any governing authority, or person under whom any employee is serving or by whom employed who shall knowingly or carelessly permit any such employee to continue in employment after failing to comply with the provisions the law is guilty of a second degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in jail, removal from office and a fine of up to $500, Florida law says.

In the case of Greer, it appears that elections officials as well as the Secretary of State are responsible for carelessly accepting an improper oath of office and unlawfully allowing him access to the ballot. The persons responsible are subject to criminal penalties as provided by Florida statute and the Attorney General’s office has the duty to enforce the state law.

And even if Greer had filed the proper loyalty oath in order to qualify for office and gain access to the ballot, he didn’t properly take and file his oath of office after election.

In Florida, as in New York and other states, the law is very explicit. Chapter 114(h) states that “upon the failure of a person elected or appointed to office to qualify for office within 30 days from the commencement of the term of office , the office becomes vacant.

All judges in Florida have terms that begin on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January following the general election.

The Empire Journal has diligently searched for Greer’s oath of office which by law he had to file within 30 days after the commencement of his term in order to qualify. No oath, no office.

Although Freedom of Information Law requests were sent to the court, the state’s Department of Financial Services, the Secretary of State and the Division of Elections, not one of the offices could or would produce a copy of Greer’s oath filed within the 30-day window period of the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, 1999, the beginning of his six year term.

By operation of law, even if he could claim he had qualified for office, Greer automatically vacated his office on the 31st day of his term, approximately February 4, 1999, and has had no legal jurisdiction to act as judge since that time.

Has he qualified for this year’s election?

In that Greer’s six year term expires the first Monday of January, 2005, Greer would have had to qualify to be on the ballot between noon on May 3 and noon, May 7.

So far, the Division of Elections, Secretary of State’s office has not produced any loyalty oath in the proper form allegedly filed by Greer on May 3, 2004.

According to the rules for the Sixth Circuit, oaths of office for the judges must be filed in either the Department of Financial Services or the court itself.

However, when The Empire Journal contacted the court office, the clerk didn’t know what an oath of office was and suggested the court’s public information officer be contacted.

The public information officer confirmed that Judge Greer’s oath of office was not on file at the court and suggested that the newspaper contact the Secretary of State’s office which had already been done. That office can produce only an oath dated Aug. 7, 1998.

Nor has the Department of Financial Services been able to produce a valid, timely oath of office for Greer. In the absence of a valid, current oath filed in either the court or the state comptroller’s office, Greer has not complied with the law and therefore has vacated the office---that is had he legally held it to begin with.

There is certainly just and legal cause for Schiavo’s parents to immediately move to vacate all decisions by Greer and to seek a new trial on jurisdictional grounds.

The issue of the oath is in black and white. The oath that Greer filed clearly is not in the form mandated by law. Therefore he did not qualify for office and should have been immediately discharged by the governing authority under which he was employed. In Greer’s case, that authority is the Florida Supreme Court. By law, he wasn’t entitled to receive any compensation thus it appears he should also be repaying Florida taxpayers the monies he’s unlawfully collected the past six years.

And then there’s the matter of what employee or employees allowed the improper oath to be filed and Greer to be placed on the ballot. Those individuals are subject to prosecution as provided by law.

Even people playing God and judge have to abide by the Constitution and the law.

[D.Dog]

Thanks Jersee, Henery, Merrill, and all.

Now that I have a course of action concering altering the contract and filing it, i need to anticipate their reaction and what or how any retribution they might take So I can start preparing.

I have not found where it would be illegal to make those changes as they will sign after I have and send me that recorded copy.

Should I, when I return it point out the changes I made or is it all on them?