Miami-area ex-attorney Jack Thompson asked me this morning whether the Florida public employee's loyalty oath applies to Bar employees.
876.05 Public employees; oath.--
(1) All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning, and all candidates for public office, except candidates for federal office, are required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form:
I, _____, a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of _____ and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.
(2) Said oath shall be filed with the records of the governing official or employing governmental agency prior to the approval of any voucher for the payment of salary, expenses, or other compensation.
The above statute requires candidates and public employees to take an oath. I believe this means that certain non-employees must swear the oath, particularly if they intend to become public employees.
Okay, so what about Bar employees? They are part (an agency) of government, the Supreme Court having absorbed and integrated the bar as its "official arm." Bar employees receive pay from the dues of bar members. I do not know whether the bar receives any funding from the rest of government, but if it does, then bar employees obtain their paychecks as a consequence of ALL money the bar has received. And that would make them government employees, sort of.
What information do we have to help us categorize the bar as part of government and the money bar employees receive as "public funds."
Note that the employees universities IN the state, regardless of their source of funding (including grants from alumni) receive a paycheck from the university, and NOT from the government. Yet, the above statute requires all of those employees to swear the oath.
I believe these facts point to one central conclusion: bar members and and non-member employees MUST swear the oath.
If anyone has any conclusion or data supporting the above assertion, or disproving it, please let me know.
Incidentally, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on the question of whether judges must swear the 876.05 oath. See attached ruling from
In the above ruling the Supremes (whom I believe must have drunk kool-aid and smoked weed at the time) claimed that a judge, having sworn the Public Officer's Oath required by Florida Constitution Article II Section 5, has thereby complied with the above oath. That of course makes no sense. Look at the text of that public officer oath:
Article II SECTION 5. Public officers.--
(a) No person holding any office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil office of emolument under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of honor or of emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold another office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission, taxation and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or statutory body having only advisory powers.
(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; 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 (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.",
and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.
(c) The powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county officers shall be fixed by law.
Do you see the word "Government" in the oath. Obviously, the writers of Section 5 have no clue about the purpose of the loyalty oath because they made the oath swearer promise to support the "Government" of the US and Florida. What an outrage! The "Government" constitutes the enemy of the people, and for that very reason its members must swear to support the Constitutions, not the government. The "Government" consists of the people presently in office, and the acts of those governing people constitute the direst threat to the rights of the governed. So, Florida's Public Officer's oath consists of a physical impossibility, for one cannot stand loyal to both the Government and the Constitution at the same time, unless (by some wild accident) the governors abide by that Constitution. As we well know, government employees commit countless acts of disloyalty to the Constitutions daily. On top of that, the "and Government" part of the above oath conflicts with the US Constitution, which requires loyalty oath to the Constitution, exclusive of Government. Look at the provision in Article VI of the US Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Furthermore the State Department lawyers and Governor's staff seem to believe the insipid notion that judicial nominees do not have to swear the Candidate's Oath of Florida Statute 105.031. That means a lot of our judges have not sworn loyalty to the Constitution during nominee status - those appointed by the Governor have not, but the candidates for election have. When you look at the statute, you see that the judicial candidates must swear that they have read the Code of Judicial Conduct. Nominees, apparently, don't need to swear they have read it. I wonder why.
Also, take note of the relevance of loyalty oaths among religious sects. Many fundamental Christians refuse to swear oaths at all ("my word is my bond"), and they base this refusal on the Holy Bible: Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12; and Exodus 20:3.
By contrast, Jewish tradition provides a method of recanting all oaths annually, during Kol Nidre declaration at Yom Kippur's high holy days of atonement and seeking of forgiveness, which fall this year on Sept 27 and 28. They declare solemnly as follows:
"All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
This very oath renouncement caused many to distrust Talmudic Jews throughout the history of the Kol Nidre. And we should ask ourselves what keeps anybody from recanting any oath of loyalty at any time, whether for religious or other reasons. At the very least, we rightly should develop pragmatic laws that impose penalties for loyalty oath violations, particularly because of the above facts, and because a law without a penalty for violating it has no force or effect other than a moral one.
Oh, and perhaps not so strangely, many financial catastrophes seem to coincide with the ending of Yom Kippur.
Thus, We the People must change this Florida Constitution to omit "and government" from the public officer's oath, and to require all bar employees, judges, justices, members of the bar, and nominees for judicial appointment to swear the 876.05 oath anew upon every change of job, and at every anniversary of employment.
Request to all who read this:
This is a critically important issue. Yes, Jack Thompson is a typical experienced activist attorney. Florida intentionally disbarred him through kangaroo court proceedings, violating every possible rule and law along the way. He wants his career back. YOU might have information about the bar that can assist him in putting them through litigation torture that will bring them to justice.
HOW CAN WE PROVE THAT BAR EMPLOYEES MUST SWEAR LOYALTY OATHS?
If you have answers, post them to me.
Thanks,
Bob Hurt -
http://bobhurt.com2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511Donate here:
http://bobhurt.com/lawdonation.htm
Study Jurisdictionary:
http://www.jurisdictionary.com/index.asp?refercode=HB0002 Join Lawmen:
lawmen-s...@googlegroups.com
Free Downloads:
http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/filesSave fuel:
http://www.fuelsaver-mpg.com/affiliates/jrox.php?id=145_1_tlid_8_MailFoot
