Challenge of Jurist's authority - re: loyalty oaths, Sibley, Thompson
Bob Hurt
Florida Chief Justice Peggy Quince:
I encourage you to read through this article I wrote in 2006 about challenging a jurist’s authority (that mean yours, et al.). Here you see that once challenged, you must prove authority, WITHOUT a Quo Warranto proceeding. And you do not become a de facto officer unless you qualified for the PRESENT TERM OF OFFICE. And you do have terms, including those that begin with a vote for retention in office.
In the SC06-1387 – The Florida Bar v. Montgomery Blair Sibley you made a number of serious errors in your loyalty oath ruling. You claim that an oath at the beginning of becoming a bar member should suffice for the entire employment in government. That makes no sense at all because the circumstances of employment change almost continuously, with every change in personnel, cases, adversaries, your conditions at home, your menstrual cycle or other hormonal changes that cause emotional and other changes, and even your religion.
For example, Talmudic Jews, at the end of each September, during the high holy days of Yom Kippur, make the solemn Kol Nidre declaration in which they renounce all personal oaths in the coming year. See this text from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre.
“Before sunset on the eve of Yom Kippur ("Day of Atonement"), the congregation gathers in the synagogue. The Ark is opened and two people take from it two Torahscrolls. Then they take their places, one on each side of the cantor, and the three (symbolizing a Beth Din or rabbinical court.) recite:
“In the tribunal of Heaven and the tribunal of earth, by the permission of God — praised be He — and by the permission of this holy congregation, we hold it lawful to pray with transgressors."
The cantor then chants the passage beginning with the words Kol Nidrei with its touching melodic phrases, and, in varying intensities from pianissimo (quiet) to fortissimo (loud), repeats three times (lest a latecomer not hear them) the following words (Nusach Ashkenaz):
"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."[4][5]
The leader and the congregation then say together three times "May all the people of Israel be forgiven, including all the strangers who live in their midst, for all the people are in fault." The Torah scrolls are then replaced, and the customary evening service begins.”
Some rabbis argue that this does not apply to official obligations like state officer loyalty oaths or marriage vows, but no one knows for certain the impact of such a declaration upon one’s willingness to obey the oath or vow. As Jack Thompson and others have pointed out, jurists commonly and EGREGIOUSLY violate their loyalty oaths. I have personally witnessed this from numerous judges in proceedings in 6th and 10th circuit courts. Without trying to side-step the obvious, I see that the Kol Nidre declaration foreswears all future oaths and vows till the next Yom Kippur. Talmudic Jews in Government therefore might not feel bound by any oath they take. They secretly unswear it at the very instant they publicly swear it.
You seem to think an oath lasts forever. We know that judges already suffer terrible pressure to scoff at the very laws they should uphold, including the Constitutions. Now we add religious motives to the pressures (Christians embrace various beliefs of Jews – why not Kol Nidre?). Personally, I prefer to see public employees re-swear the 876.05 oath annually, and to have language in it that requires the swearer to give public notice of any rescissions of the oath.
You claim that the judiciary does not have to obey state laws, and only has to obey the State and Federal Constitution, but you are bound by 4 USC 101 and 102, laws pursuant to the Constitution, and you do not belong to the US judiciary, so you cannot claim that you don’t have to obey US laws. Even as a justice you have no immunity for violating them. Furthermore, as a member of the state judiciary, as both a justice and a bar member, you tolerate widespread violation of Article II.3 of the Florida Constitution which mandates separation of powers. You do nothing to prevent attorneys (members of the judiciary since the Supreme Court’s 1949 integration of the bar) from taking jobs in the executive and legislative branches. At least a third of Florida’s legislators have bar membership and fall subject to your discipline, so we the people cannot rely upon their legislative integrity. Why would any sentient Citizen expect bar member legislators to vote against the judiciary’s rules, rulings, or whims, knowing you could, as you did with Sibley and Thompson, effect their disbarment out of spite or arrogance by upholding corrupt proceedings of an incompetent and unqualified bar referee?
Note, too, that judicial appointment nominees are “candidates” for office, and they never swear the candidate’s oath in Florida Statute 105.031. That statute requires election candidates to attest to having read the judicial canon and swear the 876.05 loyalty oath that you seem to love to hate. When I contacted the bar and the Governor’s office and asked if judicial nominees swore the 105.031 oath, they said “NO.” When I asked a State Department attorney about it, he claimed nominees don’t have to swear it because they are not “candidates.” Strangely, Black’s Law Dictionary disagrees with his assertion. And now I ask you whether you feel delighted that a rotten attorney like Dava Tunis should get nominated for judicial appointment without having to swear the candidate oath, 876.05 oath, and read the judicial canon. What makes you think she has ever yet read the canon, when she, following your lead, believes the laws for all candidates (including nominees) don’t apply to her? Why should you feel any surprise that she incompetently railroaded Jack Thompson, and that she never should have been appointed as his bar referee because she works in his judicial circuit and bears him malicious prejudice? And why do you, an esteemed chief justice, tolerate such nonsense that makes the entire judiciary resemble a band of thugs?
You deem that by swearing the Public Officer’s Oath the officer has thereby complied with the law (876.05). I see it differently. In the 876.05 oath, you swear to support the Constitutions of Florida (COF) and the United states (CUSA). In the Public Officer’s Oath (COF II.5(b)), you swear to support both the Constitutions and Governments”
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.
But the CUSA VI.0.3 provides as follows:
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
Perhaps you never noticed this nightmare of insanity in the COF oath in question. The Government has historically run amok because of scurrilous, incompetent, or megalomaniacal public employees. One cannot at the same time demonstrate loyalty to the Constitutions and loyalty to power-crazed people in Government, for the aims of the Constitutions and Governments often oppose one another. The People of the state need and want protection from bad Government (meaning bad public employees). For that very reason, we require through Constitutions and laws that our jurists swear no less than 5 loyalty oaths before we will let them perform Government duties and collect a related pay check.
And so it becomes obvious that the COF II.5(b) oath to support Government EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATES the CUSA VI.0.3. And we see that compliance with COF II.5(b) does not fulfill the requirements of 876.05, and therefore the Florida justices erred badly in their per curiam Sibley ruling.
You, Peggy Quince, violate your loyalty oath every day of your life by allowing or causing such malfeasance as I have suggested above. In making the Sibley and Thompson rulings (and in other behaviors like denying Jack Thompson access to the court and due process) you violated your loyalty oath. I encourage you to take note that many people watch you, and some smart ex-attorney might any day draft an affidavit of probable cause to have the FBI investigate and arrest you and your cronies for Honest Services Fraud (18 USC 1341-1346), the DOJ’s favorite weapon against white collar criminals.
And so, Chief Peggy, I ask that you revisit the Sibley ruling and our Constitutions and read their words anew. You might, with a fresh read, and a little more integrity, find reason to change your ruling.
Please note that by seeking in this message to identify some of your errors and motivate you to correct them, I do not mean to denounce you generally. I do not ignore the many good things you have done in the judiciary. Even on bad days most jurists do good things. And, in spite of your errors I do not consider you an intrinsically iniquitous woman. In fact, I do applaud your many good acts.
But let us admit that, when motivated by bar leader machinations to do evil, few can do as horrifying an evil, sin, or iniquity as can a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Your court’s Sibley ruling constitutes one of the most egregious and harmful rulings I have seen in our Government because in it you have given Florida’s jurists carte blanch to flout the CUSA and pursuant laws willy-nilly as their whims dictate. Thanks to you they can say “Hey, don’t blame me. I’m just supporting the Government as I promised in my Public Officer’s Oath.”
Now, please focus your attention on the arguments below. And please commit them to memory. Jurists must do a lot of things to qualify for office.
----------------------------------------------------------
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Donate to my Law Scholarship fund
Learn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Download Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive
Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!
----------------------------------------------------------
You Can Challenge a Judge’s Authority and Win
Read this document:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Lear/ChallengeOfAuthority-9-04.PDF
On page 2 you will find reference to Ryder v. US, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, which you can read here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10250
According to that ruling, if you challenge any official’s authority, that official has the obligation to prove that authority.
In similar cases of challenge, judges who had been appointed had moved to other districts to take the place of a sick judge, but the Supremes held that those judges’ rulings were valid because they really had been appointed. However, in the Ryder case, one of the judges had flawed credentials of qualification, so they were not “de facto” officers.
“The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886). "The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office." 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted). The doctrine has been relied upon by this Court in several cases involving challenges by criminal defendants to the authority of a judge who participated in some part of the proceedings leading to their conviction and sentence.” Ryder v. US, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177
I see it this way: I should not have to run to the state capitol and beg various departments to give me a judge’s oaths and appointment or election credentials. The judge should provide them to me upon request or challenge, and until the judge provides them, my challenge has validity and the judge cannot rule.
Now, if, regardless of how obtained, I discover a serious flaw in those credentials, I can challenge authority of that judge in court and before the Judicial Qualifications Commission. If one of those bodies agrees that the judge had deficient credentials, then all of his rulings have no force or effect since the time the credentials enjoyed validity.
If we face a corrupt judge or prosecutor, we might be wise to demand their credentials, ALL of the credentials from the time they first took office. For a Circuit Court judge, those might include:
1. Proof of status as an elector (all Florida judges must be electors before they can qualify as candidates)
2. Proof of having sworn the elector’s oath of loyalty to the Constitutions of the US and the State.
3. Proof of status as a bar member for the required number of contiguous years prior to election or appointment as judge (Florida Circuit Court judges must have been bar members for 5 years)
4. Proof of having sworn the lawyer’s oath administered by the Bar Examiner (in Florida, the Bar Examiner will not hand over a copy of a oath except to the person who swore it, and upon receipt of a $30 fee).
5. Proof of having sworn the judge’s oath for each successive term of office, especially the current term.
6. Proof of having qualified as a candidate for office (F.S. 105.031, 876.05, etc).
7. Proof of election by the people of the Circuit or appointment by the Governor or Supreme Court in accordance with law.
8. Proof of having accepted the elected position or the appointment in writing.
9. Proof of having submitted a personal financial report and affidavit to the Division of Elections of the State Department of the State each year in office on or before the due date.
10. Proof of having submitted a campaign finances report and affidavit for each of the terms of elected office.
11. Certification by an independent auditor that the financial reports reveal no violations of law.
12. Certification by a notary that each and every oath is sufficient and legally valid, including the signature of the person who swore the oath and the signature or jurat of the official witness.
If you want to request the oaths or other election documents and financial statements in Florida, contact this person:
Brenda Milton
Commission Issuance Section
Florida Bureau of Election Records
107 West Gaines Street, Room L66
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
I believe the above principles apply to:
· Any magistrate, judge, or justice of any court from the lowest in a municipality to the highest in the nation.
· Any State or U.S. Attorney or Assistant State or U.S. Attorney
· Any County or Circuit Clerk
· Any Sheriff
See below for additional related rulings.
I am not an attorney, I do not give legal advice, and the above does not constitute legal advice.
Bob Hurt
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. U1~TfTED STATES, 113 F2d 284 (5th Cir.1940):
“Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority.”
TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 275 U.S. 312, 332 (1921):
“Thus the guarantee was intended to secure equality of protection not only for all but against all similarly situated. Indeed, protection is not protection unless it does so. Immunity granted to a class however limited. having the effect to deprive another class however limited of a personal or property right. is last as clearly a denial of equal protection of the laws to the latter class as if the immunity were in favor of, or the deprivation of right permitted worked against, a Larger class.”
"It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right to life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law. ‘All men are equal before the law,’ ‘This is a government of laws and not of men,’ ‘No man is above the law,’ are all maxims showing the spirit in which Legislatures, executives and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws.
VEDERAL CORP INSURANCE v. MERRILL, 332 U.S. 380:
"Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained thathe who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority."
FROST & FROST TRUCKING CO. v. RAILROAD COMMON OF CALIFORNIA, 271 U.S. 583 the court ruled:
“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.”
HARMAN v. FORSSENIIIS, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965):
"...constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State.” Pp. 542-544.
Internal Revenue Manual:
“Decisions made at various levels of the court systems are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of tower courts. The internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.”
# # #