Judge's Oath of Office

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT face="times new roman, times, serif" size=1>Hello,

I have read on numerous other posts that asking the Judge to take Judicial Notice of his Oath brings back the common law to the courts.& My question is re which constitution did they take an oath to uphold; USA or US?& I just received a copy of a Judge's Oath from the SOS.& It's says, "I will support the Constitution of the United States..."&

So what is he supporting?& It's my understanding that the Constitution of the USA are amendments 1-9 and the Constitution of the US are the remaining amendments.

My question:& Is his duty only to support the US Constitution or both the USA and the US Constitution?</FONT></SPAN>

[Jerseee]

sampson,


The situation is not to figure out which constitution is which (it already appears you know that there is a difference).& The question to ask is, who did he make the oath to?& A lawyer or a notary?& that is just an example.& But, it addresses the corporate side and the public side.&


If you can find the answer to that--you will find the answer to your original question very easily.

i personally asked Richard Cornforth about the judges here in Georgia taking the incorrect, statutory required oath and he said that it was irrevelant because they do have a oath on record. We all are allowed to think for ourselves and what im getting out of it is if you bring up the incorrect oath, that is another battle outside of the original battle you were& fighting. YOu can sidetrack yourself. i do it all the time, get myself confused because i wanna fight every issue. For your information, the correct oath in Georgia says " judge of the Superior Court". The oath the judges are slyly using says JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. So, really, if you choose to fight the judge, you have two issues to choose from. He has a oath to the constitution which you want to bring into the court so that you can have common law OR you can say he is not a judge because he doesnt have the correct oath. WHICH ARGUMENT DO YOU THINK A JURY WILL BUY?

Jerseee,


&


I don't follow, can you please try a different approach?& Thanks!


&


kgod999,


&


Are you saying that the Judges in GA are using a strawman indentity?& I'm not sure where you're going with that?


&


I'm just trying to get clear which Constitution this Judge is referring to.& If I'm going to ask him to take notice of his oath and then proceed to ask what species the courts would like my to pay in, I want to make sure he took an oath to the original first&9, otherwise if the oath was to the U.S. the Fed is legal and lawful, right?&

[Jerseee]

Sampson,

Kgod and myself are saying the same thing. Kgod explained to you--I was merely trying to help you think deeply about the differrence to lead you to what Kgod has stated.

I learned from Jim to think about things that are being spoken and written. And to actually read, I mean really read what is being said.

To piggy back on Kgod's post---you shouldn't get side tracked into anonther discussion. It will confuse you and you may lose what you already may have won.

Also, HJR 192 is public poilcy. Is the judge (the court) or anyone for that matter above public policy?

Sampson, I believe that you know the answers to what you are asking but, it appears that you may not believe that you have them. As I read your post you state the answers of your question right into your question.

This reminds me of a saying that I would tell folks:

" I know you thought you heard what I said but, I'm not sure that what you heard I said is not what I meant."

Just a little humor.

Sampson,


Don't depend on a Judge taking judicial notice of his oath. Benn there, done that. It was ignored.


But then, that is just more ammo in the gun. Isn't it?


Jim

[Ice]

I wonder what would have been the case had the judge had a lien against his property as a 'bond' to insure that he acted properly.


&

[Jerseee]

Hmmmmm,

Trying to make them responsible for their reckless behavior huh, Ice. :-)

[Ice]

Well, we must hold them accountable.& Doesn't a King hold his servants accountable??& Take note of the Kings rights as mentioned in the "Land Patent" document... does not the King have the right to relieve his servant of the property/dominion that rightfully belongs to the King?


I'll let you figure out why "everything belongs to the King".

[suijuris]

All authority comes from the PEOPLE. If a public servant abuses or acts beyond the limitations of his authority, it is up to the PEOPLE to take action.

Sui Juris