Hi Larry - interesting post
esaup...@gmail.com
read your post about reporting and the agency/principal relationship
within a district attorney office.
> Do you think every A.D.A in major jurisdictions like Cook County, Los
Angeles, or the boroughs of New York City know the D.A. personally?
Do
you think the D.A. is personally involved in each of the tens of
thousands of cases a year that occur in these jurisdictions?
> He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
Not free reign, but I have wide lattitude to employ my discretion. I
do
report to other, more senior, attorneys, though.
> Who
> takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
Depending on the magnitude of the screwup, it could be me, or my
boss,
or all the way up to the D.A. himself. But I haven't had any
screwups
that significant, so I just don't know.
In Colorado, we have an interesting situation with the attorney
general John Suthers. This may be a little difficult to pull up the
linked image so you might try copy and paste into the Address bar if
the link is screwed up by the apostrophe:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
I read the Colorado constitution and when a friend of mine was in
trouble, I suggested he get a Certificate of Fact from the secretary
of state that John Suthers was intentionally running a vacant office -
Attorney General - that he did not have a properly published oath of
office. The secretary of state refused to give him a Certificate
saying they got into too much trouble - in 1996 I called John for
running a vacant DA office for eight years and he cleaned out his
office the next morning.
I advised by cellphone that my pal inform them he would be back to the
secretary's office with their Mission Statement the next day to get
his Cert. While returning from Denver he got a call from the
secretary's office that John had faxed over his brand new oath of
office. They could give him a copy of the fax but it was not a filed
oath - just a fax. They wanted him to come back and get his copy of
the fax. He called me and it sounded fishy - a way to get rid of him
with John off the hook about publishing his oath. So he went back the
next day, the 3rd and John Suthers had filed his oath, obviously put
in writing to send the previous day's fax.
I suppose my question is this - since you described a agent/principal
relationship and all the DA offices are under the AG, and the AG
office is vacant - probably in every state of the Union, doesn't that
pretty well leave a loophole to challenge jurisdiction?
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:36:40 -0800 (PST), esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >I am still finding my way around here. This format is new to me. I
> >read your post about reporting and the agency/principal relationship
> >within a district attorney office.
>
> >> Do you think every A.D.A in major jurisdictions like Cook County, Los
> >Angeles, or the boroughs of New York City know the D.A. personally?
> >Do
> >you think the D.A. is personally involved in each of the tens of
> >thousands of cases a year that occur in these jurisdictions?
> >> He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
> >Not free reign, but I have wide lattitude to employ my discretion. I
> >do
> >report to other, more senior, attorneys, though.
> >> Who
> >> takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
> >Depending on the magnitude of the screwup, it could be me, or my
> >boss,
> >or all the way up to the D.A. himself. But I haven't had any
> >screwups
> >that significant, so I just don't know.
>
> >In Colorado, we have an interesting situation with the attorney
> >general John Suthers. This may be a little difficult to pull up the
> >linked image so you might try copy and paste into the Address bar if
> >the link is screwed up by the apostrophe:
>
>
> >I read the Colorado constitution and when a friend of mine was in
> >trouble, I suggested he get a Certificate of Fact from the secretary
> >of state that John Suthers was intentionally running a vacant office -
> >Attorney General - that he did not have a properly published oath of
> >office. The secretary of state refused to give him a Certificate
> >saying they got into too much trouble - in 1996 I called John for
> >running a vacant DA office for eight years and he cleaned out his
> >office the next morning.
>
> >I advised by cellphone that my pal inform them he would be back to the
> >secretary's office with their Mission Statement the next day to get
> >his Cert. While returning from Denver he got a call from the
> >secretary's office that John had faxed over his brand new oath of
> >office. They could give him a copy of the fax but it was not a filed
> >oath - just a fax. They wanted him to come back and get his copy of
> >the fax. He called me and it sounded fishy - a way to get rid of him
> >with John off the hook about publishing his oath. So he went back the
> >next day, the 3rd and John Suthers had filed his oath, obviously put
> >in writing to send the previous day's fax.
>
> >I suppose my question is this - since you described a agent/principal
> >relationship and all the DA offices are under the AG, and the AG
> >office is vacant - probably in every state of the Union, doesn't that
> >pretty well leave a loophole to challenge jurisdiction?
>
> >Regards,
>
> >David Merrill.
>
> But I would think that whether or not the AG is actually in office, it
> wouldn't matter. As a person holding that office, merely represents
> it. I'm sure Colorado probably has a few vacant "state representative"
> offices that are vacant. Does that mean these people are not being
> represented?
>
> The DA's authority comes from the constitution just as the AG's does.
> Without the AG actually in office, then someone of lesser rank, such
> as an assistant AG, would probably take over or even the governor, or
> Lt. Governor.
>
> What does colorado's constitution have to say about when vacancies
> occur in an elected office? Most likely the governor would appoint
> someone as the interim officer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Colorado constitution says:
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 we should consider abatement of a prosecution in 1996 where I
found an oath by John Suthers filed at the county clerk and recorder
where he was DA to support a Certificate of Fact from the secretary of
state that he had cognizance of the constitution's stipulations. I put
that two documents with a return of indictment - basically no jury was
needed since I had John Suthers' testimony, into the state district
court record and a couple days later found that John had cleaned out
his office the next morning.
The mere fact that 90 days after swearing his oath John and Mary were
running around trying to patch things up says a lot too. It is
interesting that your post is going to be removed after a few days;
while in it you are saying something quite profound about publication
of fidelity bonds. You say that the people being represented is the
important thing and the proper publication of the oath of office is
the method for the people to assure themselves that they are being
represented. You should consider your post carefully as you then
consider reality as I see it - What does the constitution itself say?
The timeframe considered by law is 30 days, not 90 days. But with
John's record for dodging the fidelity bond, it was one suitor abating
a prosecution that caused John and Mary to even bother. And in doing
so in a panic over a few hours, they have actually published John's
admission he is intentionally running a vacant office - Attorney
General of the State of Colorado.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Richard said:
Interesting items you brought up.
But I would think that whether or not the AG is actually in office,
it
wouldn't matter. As a person holding that office, merely represents
it. I'm sure Colorado probably has a few vacant "state
representative"
offices that are vacant. Does that mean these people are not being
represented?
The DA's authority comes from the constitution just as the AG's does.
Without the AG actually in office, then someone of lesser rank, such
as an assistant AG, would probably take over or even the governor, or
Lt. Governor.
What does colorado's constitution have to say about when vacancies
occur in an elected office? Most likely the governor would appoint
someone as the interim officer.
esaup...@gmail.com
> I kind of recall seeing news items about Suther but hadn't realized
> who it was until now.
>
> I have my reasons for keeping my posts out of the archives.
>
> At least you found out this little tidbit and brought it out into the
> open. Many people would just let it be.
>
> I can relate to that as my brother, years ago, was instrumental in
> helping to write the "whistleblowers" law. At the time, he was
> employed by the state of Arizona in payroll, and had found employees
> who existed only on paper. These people were getting weekly paychecks.
> He brought it to the attention of his superiors, maybe even the
> governor, and he was fired. He filed a lawsuit against the state, and
> after some 10 years or more, the judge finally ruled in the state's
> favor. Naturally.
>
> Had he waited just a few more months, kept his mouth shut, the feds
> would have done the job for him. As they were already looking into
> this. As well as certain people who were taking bribes for doing
> things in congress. His case, was one of many that prompted the
> "whistleblower" law.
I think you brought out the point nicely in that most people just let
it be. Most people accept that if everybody else is accepting John
Suthers as the Attorney General, vacant office or not, he is the
attorney general. Thing is about anybody I bring this up with has a
big problem with it.
Furthermore, when it was brought up to John Suthers by the secretary
of state, he and the chief justice of the State Bar Association Mary
Mularkey #5430 both frantically tried to correct the matter too late -
an admission that proper publication of oaths of office as fidelity
bonding of government officials is critical.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<fa47a96e-5f40-467d...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in some places, like NY, the DA is not under the AG but is a
separate office established by the state constitution, although the DA
and AG do have some overlapping powers.
Second, what is a "vacant office"? I suppose an AG would be allowed to
not hire any assistant AGs if he doesn't want to, but then he'd probably
get bvoted out of office for not carrying out toe job he was elected to
do, since I assume there's more work than just he can handle.
Plus, his web site talks about at least seven different sections within
his office, so I presume there are people working in those sections.
How does that make the office "vacant"?
Dane Metcalfe
> In article
> <fa47a96e-5f40-467d-b1f4-58b8371c2...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > In Colorado, we have an interesting situation with the attorney
> > general John Suthers. This may be a little difficult to pull up the
> > linked image so you might try copy and paste into the Address bar if
> > the link is screwed up by the apostrophe:
>
> >http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oa...
In Oklahoma A district attorney is a constitutional office as well.
but, under the same statutory legislative power imposed upon the
Oklahoma Courts (those courts each and every one acting non-
constitutional administrative proceedings, naturally enough) all
Oklahoma District Attorneys are also operating by statute under the
AG.
>
> Second, what is a "vacant office"? I suppose an AG would be allowed to
> not hire any assistant AGs if he doesn't want to, but then he'd probably
> get bvoted out of office for not carrying out toe job he was elected to
> do, since I assume there's more work than just he can handle.
>
> Plus, his web site talks about at least seven different sections within
> his office, so I presume there are people working in those sections.
> How does that make the office "vacant"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not certain, but I believe that Larry may be referring that these
offices are legally being operated by de facto non-constitutional
executive officers as well.
Neat trick, that. All a legislative non constitutional congress has to
do is replace the other two branches of government with legislative
statutory replacements that are non constitutional and a
Constitutional Republican form of government are out the window!
Neat trick, the way the bar associated attorneys pulled that trick
off, but, I'd like it better if I was a lawyer, prolly.
:)
esaup...@gmail.com
> > Since you described a agent/principal
> > relationship and all the DA offices are under the AG, and the AG
> > office is vacant - probably in every state of the Union, doesn't that
> > pretty well leave a loophole to challenge jurisdiction?
>
> Well, in some places, like NY, the DA is not under the AG but is a
> separate office established by the state constitution, although the DA
> and AG do have some overlapping powers.
>
> Second, what is a "vacant office"? I suppose an AG would be allowed to
> not hire any assistant AGs if he doesn't want to, but then he'd probably
> do, since I assume there's more work than just he can handle.
>
> Plus, his web site talks about at least seven different sections within
> his office, so I presume there are people working in those sections.
> How does that make the office "vacant"?
>
The constitutional process constructs a fidelity bond. Basically that
John Suthers will be abiding by the state and federal constitutions
while in office. His oath alone is not that bond. Even putting it
together on the afternoon of the 2nd was not the bond and the
secretary of state admitted that to the suitor. The SoS called him and
wanted him to turn around and come back to Denver and settle for a fax
of the document:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
What he wanted was a Certificate of Fact that Suthers had not filed
his oath to vacate, nullify or otherwise abate several charges as a
public nuisance - that the prosecutions although coming from two state
district DAs were originating from a vacant principal office - the
Attorney General. What he got was much better - he got the published
confession from both John Suthers and Mary Mularkey that the
prosecutions were null and void and that no prosecutions from any DA
in Colorado are valid except to people who think that vacant offices
are valid.
The key to understanding how this works is to see that John's oath is
to uphold the Colorado constitution. Then you read what that means:
"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 as far as Richard's approach, it says it is the "office" that
shall be deemed vacant. So I am not going with that at all. The
constitution already considers his argument without merit by not even
addressing it.
It sounds as though Larry is saying that the Attorney General is not
automatically principal over all the District Attorneys and that is a
little difficult to swallow - even if we are talking about New York.
The attorney general is the nexus of the attorney activity in a state.
That is why John Suthers ran to Mary Mularkey on the afternoon of the
2nd to get the oath in writing. Mary Mularkey is chief justice of the
State of Colorado Bar Association - aka the State of Colorado Supreme
Court. The reason I mentioned this to Larry is because he was already
addressing principal/agency relationship in another post.
When if ever Larry does screw up, he had better hope he has a
supervisor to pass that up to. Without a principal there is nowhere to
put the blame. Without a principal, the AG, no DA has any authority to
do anything. And if the AG office is vacant, like in Colorado, that
means DA prosecutions are null and void except to the defendants who
are ignorant or willing to suffer actions from a vacant DA under a
vacant AG.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<cf9d1ea7-f7a8-4dbe...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 11:02 am, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fa47a96e-5f40-467d-b1f4-58b8371c2...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > In Colorado, we have an interesting situation with the attorney
> > > general John Suthers. This may be a little difficult to pull up the
> > > linked image so you might try copy and paste into the Address bar if
> > > the link is screwed up by the apostrophe:
> >
> > >http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill John Suthers' AG oa...
Sorry Dane, but that's not possible. It's called the non-aggrandizement
principle, and its been applied many times.
> Neat trick, the way the bar associated attorneys pulled that trick
> off, but, I'd like it better if I was a lawyer, prolly.
Personally, I really like how you think all "bas associated" attorneys
are part of a grand, giant conspiracy.
Larry
<5fcd07f3-3a99-4c39...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> It sounds as though Larry is saying that the Attorney General is not
> automatically principal over all the District Attorneys and that is a
> little difficult to swallow - even if we are talking about New York.
I'm sorry if you find this difficult to swallow, but it is true. The
Attorney General has some powers and jurisdiction that District
Attorneys don't have, while DAs have some powers and jurisdictions that
the AG doesn't have. I can provide examples if you like, but I imagine
most people could figure out some of their own.
> The attorney general is the nexus of the attorney activity in a state.
> That is why John Suthers ran to Mary Mularkey on the afternoon of the
> 2nd to get the oath in writing. Mary Mularkey is chief justice of the
> State of Colorado Bar Association - aka the State of Colorado Supreme
> Court. The reason I mentioned this to Larry is because he was already
> addressing principal/agency relationship in another post.
>
> When if ever Larry does screw up, he had better hope he has a
> supervisor to pass that up to.
That's humorous. There are over 1000 employees in my office, as well as
a constitutional and statutory framework for naming a successor if the
DA is unable to complete his duties, or voluntarily steps down (in some
cases, a new DA is appointed by the governor, in others there is an
acting DA until a special election is held). The only way I wouldn't
have a supervisor is if I was the DA myself.
> Without a principal there is nowhere to
> put the blame. Without a principal, the AG, no DA has any authority to
> do anything.
That's just not true in New York. It may be in Colorado, but I doubt it.
> And if the AG office is vacant, like in Colorado, that
> means DA prosecutions are null and void except to the defendants who
> are ignorant or willing to suffer actions from a vacant DA under a
> vacant AG.
Interesting theory. How 'bout you commit a crime, get arrested and
prosecuted for it, and see how far that argument gets you in court?
Look at it a different way: suppose a president or governor is
assassinated or dies while in office. Some amount of time (minutes, or
even hours) will pass before the VP or Lt. Governor is sworn into office
- during that time, is everyone in the executive branch powerless? Most
certainly not.
esaup...@gmail.com
>
> I'm not certain, but I believe that Larry may be referring that these
> offices are legally being operated by de facto non-constitutional
> executive officers as well.
>
> Neat trick, that. All a legislative non constitutional congress has to
> do is replace the other two branches of government with legislative
> statutory replacements that are non constitutional and a
> Constitutional Republican form of government are out the window!
>
> Neat trick, the way the bar associated attorneys pulled that trick
> off, but, I'd like it better if I was a lawyer, prolly.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed then you will get a kick out of this too:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
That is basically my point about this. One has to be pretty insistant
not to get dragged into courts of no record and vacant prosecutions.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
"Personally, I really like how you think all "bar associated"
attorneys
are part of a grand, giant conspiracy."
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety1.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety2.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety2.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety3.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_CrownTempleSociety3.mp3
On Dec 23, 3:11 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting theory. How 'bout you commit a crime, get arrested and
> prosecuted for it, and see how far that argument gets you in court?
>
> Look at it a different way: suppose a president or governor is
> assassinated or dies while in office. Some amount of time (minutes, or
> even hours) will pass before the VP or Lt. Governor is sworn into office
> - during that time, is everyone in the executive branch powerless? Most
> certainly not.
That is my point. When somebody abates a public nuisance, like a
vacant prosecution, they do not argue it in court. They abate it.
There is no court if the prosecutor is prosecuting from a vacant
office.
Try looking at it a different way. Go back to 1996 when I got Suthers
fired for running a vacant DA office for eight years. A simple Refusal
for Cause with the Admission, as I will call it suffices. But you
certainly do not continue appearing to cure the defective
jurisdiction. On occasion somebody is spooked enough to publish their
demand to be prosecuted from a valid office or not at all:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<3c1f8795-68e3-4216...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> First:
>
> "Personally, I really like how you think all "bar associated"
> attorneys
> are part of a grand, giant conspiracy."
>
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety1.doc
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety1.mp3
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety2.doc
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety2.mp3
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety3.doc
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill CrownTempleSociety3.mp3
Care to summarize these? I'm not about to download a bunch of MP3 files
and word documents without knowing what site they're from or what
they're about.
> On Dec 23, 3:11 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting theory. How 'bout you commit a crime, get arrested and
> > prosecuted for it, and see how far that argument gets you in court?
> >
> > Look at it a different way: suppose a president or governor is
> > assassinated or dies while in office. Some amount of time (minutes, or
> > even hours) will pass before the VP or Lt. Governor is sworn into office
> > - during that time, is everyone in the executive branch powerless? Most
> > certainly not.
>
> That is my point. When somebody abates a public nuisance, like a
> vacant prosecution, they do not argue it in court. They abate it.
> There is no court if the prosecutor is prosecuting from a vacant
> office.
So now you're saying that if the prosecutor is from a "vacant office"
the court ceases to exist too, even though that is a separate and
independent branch of government?
> Try looking at it a different way. Go back to 1996 when I got Suthers
> fired for running a vacant DA office for eight years. A simple Refusal
> for Cause with the Admission, as I will call it suffices. But you
> certainly do not continue appearing to cure the defective
> jurisdiction. On occasion somebody is spooked enough to publish their
> demand to be prosecuted from a valid office or not at all:
So you're saying that all convictions obtained by Colorado prosecutors
from 1988-1996 are null and void?
Larry
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> > Try looking at it a different way. Go back to 1996 when I got Suthers
> > fired for running a vacant DA office for eight years. A simple Refusal
> > for Cause with the Admission, as I will call it suffices. But you
> > certainly do not continue appearing to cure the defective
> > jurisdiction. On occasion somebody is spooked enough to publish their
> > demand to be prosecuted from a valid office or not at all:
>
> So you're saying that all convictions obtained by Colorado prosecutors
> from 1988-1996 are null and void?
And how exactly did you "[get] Suthers fired"? He completed two full
terms in office, from what I read online. Then he became Executive
Director of the state corrections system, before becoming US Attorney,
and recently being appointed AG again.
esaup...@gmail.com
>
> > So you're saying that all convictions obtained by Colorado prosecutors
> > from 1988-1996 are null and void?
Of course. That is why you are diverting attention to the principal-
agency relationship between the AG and subordinate DAs. So I went back
to John Suthers as DA. I hear you are a prosecutor for a large DA;
correct? If your DA, over you is intentionally running his office
vacant, do you think you have standing to prosecute anybody?
That is the real issue here; idealistic as it may sound.
I can just about guarantee you this Larry; there is something flawed
in the fidelity oath with your superior, or his superior the AG.
Otherwise you and his office would be bound to the state and federal
constitutions.
>
> And how exactly did you "[get] Suthers fired"? He completed two full
> terms in office, from what I read online. Then he became Executive
> Director of the state corrections system, before becoming US Attorney,
> and recently being appointed AG again.
I explained that above. I found his oath of office at the county level
and put that with a Certificate of Search from the secretary of state
saying that he never filed any oath there. He cleaned out his office
the next day. It was coincidently six or eight weeks from the end of
his second term and he avoided the inquiring press as to why he was
leaving early.
His subsequent career has had no effect on me. Do not think I am pro-
crime. I do not like the idea of setting violent criminals free. But I
certainly will support somebody in claiming that any prosecution
against them be coming from a valid office. The only excuse you have
to say otherwise would simply be that you know your boss's oath,
somewhere up the chain is flawed.
Rhetorical: How about your oath? Did you take one? Did you publish it
timely according to the state constitution?
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
"So now you're saying that if the prosecutor is from a "vacant
office"
the court ceases to exist too, even though that is a separate and
independent branch of government?"
I prefer to think that any self-respecting judge would chastise any
prosecutor for pushing a dead cause in his courtroom.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
"So now you're saying that if the prosecutor is from a "vacant
office"
the court ceases to exist too, even though that is a separate and
independent branch of government?"
I would hope that any self-respecting judge, properly notified that
the prosecutor has been notified, would chastise a prosecutor for
pushing a dead cause from a constitutionally vacant office in his
courtroom. Which is to say, almost all judge's are nothing more than
attorneys in black robes and that none of them have oaths in place -
at least not properly published.
But it works either way even if they do. Then they cannot entertain a
cause from a constitutionally vacant office, can they?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<7cb4576a-9ec1-4c0f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 23, 4:48 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > So you're saying that all convictions obtained by Colorado prosecutors
> > > from 1988-1996 are null and void?
>
> Of course.
I presume there are plenty of smart defense lawyers in Colorado, no? If
not, certainly out-of-state lawyers at the Innocence Project and other
worthwhile causes who would be interested in this issue, no?
Can you name one case in which a defendant even attempted to raise this
claim in defense of charges filed against him? Just one?
> That is why you are diverting attention to the principal-
> agency relationship between the AG and subordinate DAs.
I am not diverting attention to anything. If you recall (and your
subject line shows) I had discussed this agency relationship first.
Based on that, you asked me to comment on this situation. I indulged
you, and continue to indulge you, in this discussion. But I haven't
diverted the issue in any way.
> So I went back
> to John Suthers as DA.
As DA or as AG?
> I hear you are a prosecutor for a large DA;
> correct?
Yes, I am.
>If your DA, over you is intentionally running his office
> vacant, do you think you have standing to prosecute anybody?
Yes, I do. Sorry to break it to you, but I do. I was appointed by the
DA to serve as an ADA, and there is no question that at the time he made
the appointment he had the authority to do so. Should he abandon the
office, hypothetically, I still have the authority of the position I was
appointed to.
> That is the real issue here; idealistic as it may sound.
>
> I can just about guarantee you this Larry; there is something flawed
> in the fidelity oath with your superior, or his superior the AG.
> Otherwise you and his office would be bound to the state and federal
> constitutions.
We are bound to the federal and state constitutions, as well as state
law. And my oath declared as much. I'd like to see you back up this
"guarantee," since you made it.
> > And how exactly did you "[get] Suthers fired"? He completed two full
> > terms in office, from what I read online. Then he became Executive
> > Director of the state corrections system, before becoming US Attorney,
> > and recently being appointed AG again.
>
> I explained that above. I found his oath of office at the county level
> and put that with a Certificate of Search from the secretary of state
> saying that he never filed any oath there. He cleaned out his office
> the next day.
The "the next day" happen to be the day that the newly-elected DA was
sworn into office, by any chance?
> It was coincidently six or eight weeks from the end of
> his second term and he avoided the inquiring press as to why he was
> leaving early.
The press had no interest whatsoever in why the DA left the job two
months early? I don't believe that, to be frank with you.
> His subsequent career has had no effect on me. Do not think I am pro-
> crime. I do not like the idea of setting violent criminals free. But I
> certainly will support somebody in claiming that any prosecution
> against them be coming from a valid office. The only excuse you have
> to say otherwise would simply be that you know your boss's oath,
> somewhere up the chain is flawed.
>
> Rhetorical: How about your oath? Did you take one? Did you publish it
> timely according to the state constitution?
Where in the New York state constitution is this required?
Larry
<a4758a55-b864-436b...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
So now you're claiming there are no self-respecting judges in Colorado.
Interesting.
Larry
<a8d80cfe-ff1e-419d...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 23, 5:13 pm, esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "So now you're saying that if the prosecutor is from a "vacant
> office"
> the court ceases to exist too, even though that is a separate and
> independent branch of government?"
>
> I would hope that any self-respecting judge, properly notified that
> the prosecutor has been notified, would chastise a prosecutor for
> pushing a dead cause from a constitutionally vacant office in his
> courtroom. Which is to say, almost all judge's are nothing more than
> attorneys in black robes and that none of them have oaths in place -
> at least not properly published.
Prosecutors work for the office of the attorney general or district
attorney, they do not work for the AG or DA personally. That's why when
a new AG or DA takes over, everyone still has a job unless they're told
otherwise.
> But it works either way even if they do. Then they cannot entertain a
> cause from a constitutionally vacant office, can they?
Yet they did entertain such cases, which, ipso facto (by your reasoning)
means the office wasn't vacant.
esaup...@gmail.com
the DA to serve as an ADA, and there is no question that at the time
he made the appointment he had the authority to do so."
I am not sure if you are in Los Angeles or New York but supposing it
was John Suthers, intentionally running a vacant office who appointed
you ADA... In other words, you do not know that the DA who appointed
you had the authority to do so. You presume he or she filled the
constitutional stipulations for a valid office. Surely you are not
saying that if the DA appointing you was running a vacant office, they
were authorized to appoint you?
There's my point really.
"I presume there are plenty of smart defense lawyers in Colorado, no?
If not, certainly out-of-state lawyers at the Innocence Project and
other worthwhile causes who would be interested in this issue, no?
Can you name one case in which a defendant even attempted to raise
this
claim in defense of charges filed against him? Just one?"
All the defense lawyers in Colorado are attorneys. They have no
license, only acceptance in a club called the Bar aka State of
Colorado Supreme Court. You will not click on the links? Have you even
viewed John Suthers' admission he is running a vacant office? How can
I name a case that was abated as a nuisance? I can tell you that I was
at church yesterday where several people would have been in jail if
not for abating on this or similar foundation. And since the
prosecutions for both of them came from John Suthers' constitutionally
vacant office, I feel no obligation to turn them in like they are
criminals.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
You really should get a peek. John Suthers is truly running a vacant
office, according to the same state constitution he has sworn in the
same admission to uphold.
The way Refusal for Cause works, the cause never gets into the
courtroom. But even if it does, the clerk of court is not going to
provide evidence the cause was abated as a nuisance. Morelike, if
during a subsequent arrest and prosecution, the "defendant" fails to
abate for John's vacant office, the charges are likely to re-emerge
and get tagged on.
Here is a typical anecdote though. A suitor (court of competent
jurisdiction) was getting railroaded by a black robed attorney. He
requested a copy of the fellow's oath. The clerk of court (maybe in
chambers) gave him a copy and he was prematurely ecstatic when I asked
him if it was properly published. He got confused and went back to try
and get another copy and they would not provide it any longer. The
"judge" had found out and forbade the clerks from giving out his oath.
I sent the suitor to the county clerk and recorder and instructed him
not to leave without the published oath or a certificate of fact
otherwise; where they told him they would not give him a Certificate
of Fact that this same "judge" had never filed an oath. He told them
that they had to. So they had a conference and did.
That was recusal. The "judge" is not a judge at all. He is
intentionally running a vacant office.
So Larry, look up the publication requirements for your oath. Have you
done that? Has your boss, the DA? How about his boss the AG?
The other side of this is the "judge" who proudly announced that all
"judges" in the State of Colorado have to be registered attorneys with
the State Bar aka the State of Colorado Supreme Court. He even stated
his Attorney Registration # for the Record. Then in the next breath he
had to recuse himself for conflict of interest.
On Dec 23, 5:38 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> > But it works either way even if they do. Then they cannot entertain a
> > cause from a constitutionally vacant office, can they?
>
"Yet they did entertain such cases, which, ipso facto (by your
reasoning) means the office wasn't vacant."
You are not making sense to me Larry. You said:
"We are bound to the federal and state constitutions, as well as state
law. And my oath declared as much."
Yet you fail to make it clear why John Suthers gets to run a vacant
office, clearly admitted in light of the state constitution.
"I'd like to see you back up this "guarantee," since you made it."
Why? If I link it you will not click on it. I have proven that John
Suthers is running a vacant office.
"The "the next day" happen to be the day that the newly-elected DA
was
sworn into office, by any chance?"
> It was coincidently six or eight weeks from the end of
> his second term and he avoided the inquiring press as to why he was
> leaving early.
That is an interesting story too. He actually elected Jeanne Smith to
take his place. Not the voters. Six months later another suitor-type
went to the secretary of state for Jeanne's oath. This 90-year old,
Jim, was treated like a terrorist but finally they told him to pay his
fee and they would mail her oath of office. Remember that John had
been ousted on the quiet and last year they were telling an intrepid
suitor at the SoS they no longer provided Certs of Fact on officials
who do not file their oaths. Two weeks later Jim got Jeanne's oath of
office admitting she was running a vacant office like John (filed 6
months late) - Filed a week after Jim had visited the SoS!
"The press had no interest whatsoever in why the DA left the job two
months early? I don't believe that, to be frank with you."
Actually there was comment in the press, confusion why he would not
answer their question. But you can spin this however you want. I see
where you are coming from and believe you are being contrary to
yourself like I pointed out here.
You are behaving as though, according to the state constitution John
Suthers is running a valid office. No. He is not.
"Prosecutors work for the office of the attorney general or district
attorney, they do not work for the AG or DA personally. That's why
when a new AG or DA takes over, everyone still has a job unless
they're told otherwise."
That is just convoluted. You are behaving like Richard was about
persons when it is the Office that is vacant. If a new person gets
seated in that Office then the requirement is that they file their
oath of office within 30 days at the Secretary of State office. If
they do not, the office is vacant. [Speaking for Colorado and I am
sure the state constitution there is quite similar.]
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<b306461d-af15-4cf2...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Yes, I do. Sorry to break it to you, but I do. I was appointed by
> the DA to serve as an ADA, and there is no question that at the time
> he made the appointment he had the authority to do so."
>
> I am not sure if you are in Los Angeles or New York
I'm in New York.
> but supposing it
> was John Suthers, intentionally running a vacant office who appointed
> you ADA...
An Attorney General would not appoint Assistant District Attorneys.
> In other words, you do not know that the DA who appointed
> you had the authority to do so. You presume he or she filled the
> constitutional stipulations for a valid office. Surely you are not
> saying that if the DA appointing you was running a vacant office, they
> were authorized to appoint you?
I still don't see that "running a vacant office" means they're not the
Attorney General. If you're hired or elected to do a job, and you slack
off at the job, you're still the one with the job. Even if you do it
poorly or neglect your responsibilities.
> There's my point really.
>
> "I presume there are plenty of smart defense lawyers in Colorado, no?
> If not, certainly out-of-state lawyers at the Innocence Project and
> other worthwhile causes who would be interested in this issue, no?
>
> Can you name one case in which a defendant even attempted to raise
> this
> claim in defense of charges filed against him? Just one?"
>
> All the defense lawyers in Colorado are attorneys. They have no
> license, only acceptance in a club called the Bar aka State of
> Colorado Supreme Court.
Ahhh, the old attorney-conspiracy theory. If you actually knew how the
system worked, you'd know that not all attorneys get along. Many have
nothing but contempt for certain other attorneys.
> You will not click on the links? Have you even
> viewed John Suthers' admission he is running a vacant office? How can
> I name a case that was abated as a nuisance? I can tell you that I was
> at church yesterday where several people would have been in jail if
> not for abating on this or similar foundation. And since the
> prosecutions for both of them came from John Suthers' constitutionally
> vacant office, I feel no obligation to turn them in like they are
> criminals.
>
> http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill John Suthers' AG oath.jpg
>
> You really should get a peek. John Suthers is truly running a vacant
> office, according to the same state constitution he has sworn in the
> same admission to uphold.
I can't peek. That URL has spaces in it, and is not valid.
> The way Refusal for Cause works, the cause never gets into the
> courtroom. But even if it does, the clerk of court is not going to
> provide evidence the cause was abated as a nuisance. Morelike, if
> during a subsequent arrest and prosecution, the "defendant" fails to
> abate for John's vacant office, the charges are likely to re-emerge
> and get tagged on.
Really? So there's no statute of limitations in Colorado?
> Here is a typical anecdote though. A suitor (court of competent
> jurisdiction) was getting railroaded by a black robed attorney. He
> requested a copy of the fellow's oath. The clerk of court (maybe in
> chambers) gave him a copy and he was prematurely ecstatic when I asked
> him if it was properly published. He got confused and went back to try
> and get another copy and they would not provide it any longer. The
> "judge" had found out and forbade the clerks from giving out his oath.
> I sent the suitor to the county clerk and recorder and instructed him
> not to leave without the published oath or a certificate of fact
> otherwise; where they told him they would not give him a Certificate
> of Fact that this same "judge" had never filed an oath. He told them
> that they had to. So they had a conference and did.
>
> That was recusal. The "judge" is not a judge at all. He is
> intentionally running a vacant office.
>
> So Larry, look up the publication requirements for your oath. Have you
> done that? Has your boss, the DA? How about his boss the AG?
The Attorney General is NOT the District Attorney's boss in New York. I
can't make this any clearer. They are distinct constitutional offices.
The next time you claim otherwise I will not participate in this
discussion any further, since I will take it as proof you are not
considering what I have to say.
New York also does not have "Certificates of Fact" or a requirement that
oaths be "published."
> The other side of this is the "judge" who proudly announced that all
> "judges" in the State of Colorado have to be registered attorneys with
> the State Bar aka the State of Colorado Supreme Court. He even stated
> his Attorney Registration # for the Record. Then in the next breath he
> had to recuse himself for conflict of interest.
>
> On Dec 23, 5:38 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > But it works either way even if they do. Then they cannot entertain a
> > > cause from a constitutionally vacant office, can they?
> >
>
> "Yet they did entertain such cases, which, ipso facto (by your
> reasoning) means the office wasn't vacant."
>
> You are not making sense to me Larry. You said:
>
> "We are bound to the federal and state constitutions, as well as state
> law. And my oath declared as much."
>
> Yet you fail to make it clear why John Suthers gets to run a vacant
> office, clearly admitted in light of the state constitution.
You've claimed you somehow got him removed from office, when in fact he
served two full terms. You're the one who has failed to make anything
clear.
> "I'd like to see you back up this "guarantee," since you made it."
>
> Why? If I link it you will not click on it.
You made the claim, I'd like to see you back it up. Since I know for a
fact you are incorrect. If you link to a reputable web site, in a pdf,
html, or jpg format, I will follow the link.
> I have proven that John
> Suthers is running a vacant office.
You haven't proven this, and I'm getting tired of hearing this empty
claim. You've alleged it, but I haven't seen any proof.
> "The "the next day" happen to be the day that the newly-elected DA
> was
> sworn into office, by any chance?"
>
>
> > It was coincidently six or eight weeks from the end of
> > his second term and he avoided the inquiring press as to why he was
> > leaving early.
>
> That is an interesting story too. He actually elected Jeanne Smith to
> take his place. Not the voters.
Now you're not making any sense at all. You said Suthers was the
Attorney General until 1996, right? Well, according to the Colorado
Secretary of State, in 1996 Jeanne Smith was elected District Attorney
of District 4, which encompasses El Paso and Teller counties. So I
don't see how she took over as Attorney General that year.
> Six months later another suitor-type
> went to the secretary of state for Jeanne's oath. This 90-year old,
> Jim, was treated like a terrorist but finally they told him to pay his
> fee and they would mail her oath of office. Remember that John had
> been ousted on the quiet
I don't remember this, since he completely fulfulled his second term and
was simply replaced by the guy who was elected to succeed him.
> and last year they were telling an intrepid
> suitor at the SoS they no longer provided Certs of Fact on officials
> who do not file their oaths. Two weeks later Jim got Jeanne's oath of
> office admitting she was running a vacant office like John (filed 6
> months late) - Filed a week after Jim had visited the SoS!
>
> "The press had no interest whatsoever in why the DA left the job two
> months early? I don't believe that, to be frank with you."
>
> Actually there was comment in the press,
Can you provide a cite? Just one?
> confusion why he would not
> answer their question. But you can spin this however you want. I see
> where you are coming from and believe you are being contrary to
> yourself like I pointed out here.
How am I being contrary to myself? You invited me to join this
discussion, I did, you agree with me, and now you're personally
attacking me.
I'm trying to reasonably and rationally discuss this with you, but I am
finding it very hard when you don't substantiate your claims, I've
refuted your claims via independent research, you're not making much
sense, and now you're personally attacking me. If this doesn't stop I'm
going to stop discussing this with you.
> You are behaving as though, according to the state constitution John
> Suthers is running a valid office. No. He is not.
You haven't shown me that he isn't, nor have you shown me that the term
"vacant office" has any legal significance whatsoever.
>
> "Prosecutors work for the office of the attorney general or district
> attorney, they do not work for the AG or DA personally. That's why
> when a new AG or DA takes over, everyone still has a job unless
> they're told otherwise."
>
> That is just convoluted. You are behaving like Richard was about
> persons when it is the Office that is vacant.
Richard who? Huh?
> If a new person gets
> seated in that Office then the requirement is that they file their
> oath of office within 30 days at the Secretary of State office. If
> they do not, the office is vacant. [Speaking for Colorado and I am
> sure the state constitution there is quite similar.]
Why don't you look up the New York State Constitution and see for
yourself? Because all you're doing now is making claims that you are
"sure" of things that are not the case, and you're looking silly.
esaup...@gmail.com
taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of
law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous
offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws….
Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional
subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman
Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have
been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…
. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into
the offices of the President and the Vice President.
-- American Lawyers Defending the Constitution"
I guess you are missing the bandwagon Larry. What you have done here
is try to make any Readers believe this has to do with New York?
> An Attorney General would not appoint Assistant District Attorneys.
That's another interesting convolution there - berry, berry attorney-
like of you. There are stipulations in New York I am sure that DA's
must publish oaths of office. In fact that is where I verified that
the "time by law" is 30 days, even though not specified in the
Colorado constitution - New York's constitution. I am simply presuming
that the DA who appointed you was not authorized to do so. Simply put
- John Suthers is running a vacant office of AG in Colorado. That is
documented fact:
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
There is the proof right there. Click on it or not. You might simply
copy and paste it to the Address Bar if you are having trouble?
"I suppose my question is this - since you described a agent/principal
relationship and all the DA offices are under the AG, and the AG
office is vacant - probably in every state of the Union, doesn't that
pretty well leave a loophole to challenge jurisdiction?"
So the real question rather than my original would be a little
different. Rather than Does it matter whether or not John Suthers is
running a vacant office, do you understand that he actually is running
a vacant office?
You say I have not shown him to be. And I have. You are simply saying
that you cannot open the link. Otherwise you are free to consider me
offensive and quit posting response to my inquiry.
Which is basically that, Since John Suthers had 30 days to file his
oath with the secretary of state to validate his office, and he waited
90 days, which according to the state constitution means he is running
a vacant office, do you admit that John Suthers is running a vacant
office?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<0ea95a85-85d0-427c...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> "We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all
> taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of
> law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous
> offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws….
> Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional
> subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on
> House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman
> Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have
> been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…
> . We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into
> the offices of the President and the Vice President.
>
> -- American Lawyers Defending the Constitution"
So a bunch of lawyers have this position. Does it mean everyone does?
Do you think every plumber has the same political views? Every teacher?
Every electrical engineer?
> I guess you are missing the bandwagon Larry. What you have done here
> is try to make any Readers believe this has to do with New York?
I never said your situation has anything to do with New York. You've
made claims about my oath of office, and how the AG and DA's offices are
related in New York.
> > An Attorney General would not appoint Assistant District Attorneys.
>
> That's another interesting convolution there - berry, berry attorney-
> like of you. There are stipulations in New York I am sure that DA's
> must publish oaths of office.
I've told you several times now that there is no such stipulation,
statute, Constitutional requirement, or other regulation regarding this
in New York state. I don't know why you don't want to believe this, but
it is true. If you think I am incorrect about this, please cite the
applicable source here:
If you cannot show I am wrong, then stop making claims which are not
true.
> In fact that is where I verified that
> the "time by law" is 30 days, even though not specified in the
> Colorado constitution - New York's constitution. I am simply presuming
> that the DA who appointed you was not authorized to do so.
I know you are presuming this. That's your problem. You are presuming
it without any basis to make such a claim. I am telling you in no
uncertain terms that your premise is flawed, and you are wrong. You
don't like to hear that, though, so you are making personal attacks and
accusing me of being a part of some conspiracy.
> Simply put
> - John Suthers is running a vacant office of AG in Colorado. That is
> documented fact:
>
> http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill John Suthers' AG oath.jpg
>
> There is the proof right there. Click on it or not. You might simply
> copy and paste it to the Address Bar if you are having trouble?
It still doesn't work for me, because there are blanks in the URL (look
at it yourself). You can't have spaces in a URL. Are they suppsoed to
be underscores, perhaps?
> "I suppose my question is this - since you described a agent/principal
> relationship and all the DA offices are under the AG, and the AG
> office is vacant - probably in every state of the Union, doesn't that
> pretty well leave a loophole to challenge jurisdiction?"
>
> So the real question rather than my original would be a little
> different. Rather than Does it matter whether or not John Suthers is
> running a vacant office, do you understand that he actually is running
> a vacant office?
Before I can answer this question, I want you to define for me what a
"vacant office" is and what legal significance this has. Then I will be
able to answer your question.
>
> You say I have not shown him to be. And I have. You are simply saying
> that you cannot open the link. Otherwise you are free to consider me
> offensive and quit posting response to my inquiry.
>
> Which is basically that, Since John Suthers had 30 days to file his
> oath with the secretary of state to validate his office, and he waited
> 90 days, which according to the state constitution means he is running
> a vacant office, do you admit that John Suthers is running a vacant
> office?
Cite to me where in the state constitution there is such a requirement,
and provide proof that he did not comply with that constitutional
provision. Then, we'll talk.
esaup...@gmail.com
> Before I can answer this question, I want you to define for me what a
> "vacant office" is and what legal significance this has. Then I will be
> able to answer your question.
"...and what legal significance it has."
That is why I got frustrated trying to converse with you Larry. Let's
drop the legal significance for a moment and just focus on whether or
not, according to the Colorado constitution, John Suthers is running a
vacant office. Then maybe if I feel like dealing with your
juxtapositioning between yourself, New York and John and Colorado, we
can get to legal significance.
I already know the legal significance - null prosecution and void
judgment. Once the foundation of a vacant office has been laid, the
cause (prosecution) can be easily abated as a nuisance. But I do not
want to open that distraction up for you.
> Cite to me where in the state constitution there is such a requirement,
> and provide proof that he did not comply with that constitutional
> provision. Then, we'll talk.
________________________________
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.
________________________________
"...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."
The time prescribed by law, here like in New York for publishing the
oath of office is 30 days.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
And John Suthers took 90 days.
Now we can talk?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<22cb33b9-6b49-47c9...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> Do you think that John Suthers is running a vacant office?
>
>
> > Before I can answer this question, I want you to define for me what a
> > "vacant office" is and what legal significance this has. Then I will be
> > able to answer your question.
>
> "...and what legal significance it has."
>
> That is why I got frustrated trying to converse with you Larry. Let's
> drop the legal significance for a moment and just focus on whether or
> not, according to the Colorado constitution, John Suthers is running a
> vacant office.
You're talking about an elected official, the state constitution, oaths
of office, and other legal requirements, and you want to take the "legal
significance" out of it? I'm sorry, but that cannot be done.
> Then maybe if I feel like dealing with your
> juxtapositioning between yourself, New York and John and Colorado, we
> can get to legal significance.
I am not juxtaposing anything. If anything, I am trying to keep New
York and my job out of this - they are completely different. *YOU* are
the one who is commenting about the oath I have taken, the oath my boss
has taken, and whether my boss's oath has been published according to
what you claim (incorrectly) is required in New York.
I'll make you a deal. I won't mention New York or any NY governmental
offices again if you won't.
> I already know the legal significance - null prosecution and void
> judgment. Once the foundation of a vacant office has been laid, the
> cause (prosecution) can be easily abated as a nuisance.
How do you know this? What constitutional, statutory, or judicial
source can you cite for this? Or is this just how you think the world
should work?
> But I do not
> want to open that distraction up for you.
Then what do you want to talk about? You asked me above whether or not
he is running a vacant office, but then you tell me he is and know the
legal significance of it. If that's true, I don't know what there is
for us to discuss. Your mind is made up, you think it is therefore it
is, so I don't know what there is left for us to talk about.
You seem to be only interested in hearing me say that you're right.
> > Cite to me where in the state constitution there is such a requirement,
> > and provide proof that he did not comply with that constitutional
> > provision. Then, we'll talk.
>
>
> 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.
I assume the Attorney General is an officer of the executive department?
If so, then these 2 sections seem to state the AG must take an oath, and
the oath must be filed with the secretary of state. So far, I follow.
> 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.
>
>
> "...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."
>
> The time prescribed by law, here like in New York for publishing the
> oath of office is 30 days.
There is no such requirement in New York. There you go again trying to
juxtapose the two. Stop it.
> http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill John Suthers' AG oath.jpg
>
> And John Suthers took 90 days.
>
>
> Now we can talk?
Well, now you're at least substantiating your argument, which is a good
start.
So let's say, for argument's sake, that the office is vacant. How do
you get from there to the idea that all prosecutions undertaken by the
office are null and void?
Just because no one is currently the Attorney General (even if that's
true), doesn't mean that there is no Attorney General's OFFICE or that
the employees of that office don't have any power and responsibility.
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the concept of agency here.
Employees of the agency are not agents of the AG in a personal capacity,
they are agents of the AG in a professional capacity. And this agency
relationship exists whether or not someone actually holds the title of
Attorney General.
esaup...@gmail.com
> So let's say, for argument's sake, that the office is vacant.
Vacant means empty.
I do not think I need to make any legal or other determination about
what that means. An empty office means it is void. No valid
prosecution could commence from a vacant AG office. No valid judgment
or opinion could ever issue from a vacant courtroom.
The beauty of it is that no court was needed - John Suthers, in both
cases, vacant DA in 1996 and currently vacant AG provided the
testimony against himself. It is right there. He swears to uphold the
state constitution and then fails to abide by it, expressly leaving
his office vacant. Whatever that means...
You were dancing around that simple issue for so long Larry, that I
just felt it best to break it down a bit for anybody who is reading
and trying to get anything out of this discussion or debate - whatever
you want to call it.
Where I was going from your admission that John Suthers is running a
vacant office is something I thought you especially could relate to.
You put causes, prosecutions into the courthouse. You file complaints
that start criminal proceedings. The "judges" you put these causes
before also swear oaths of office. And there are constitutional
stipulations about publishing those oaths.
When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properly
installed office himself. De facto can only nurture de facto. If the
"judge" is running a valid office, he cannot entertain the cause from
a vacant office. That would be in violation of his oath. And of course
if the "judge" does not have his oath properly published his office of
"judge" is vacant and so the "defendant" abates the vacant proceedings
as a public nuisance - basically as a civic duty. There is no
authority in a vacant court - all that can issue are null judgments.
Like I said, Vacant means Empty.
You can pretend to understand that differently Larry. I know it is
your job to. But I would gather some people reading this thread
understand what I am trying to say.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<2dd5107c-d6d1-4586...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> > So let's say, for argument's sake, that the office is vacant.
>
> Vacant means empty.
>
> I do not think I need to make any legal or other determination about
> what that means. An empty office means it is void. No valid
> prosecution could commence from a vacant AG office. No valid judgment
> or opinion could ever issue from a vacant courtroom.
This is not true.
Again, I ask you: suppose the president is assassinated, or cannot
fulfill his other duties for some reason. Now suppose it is a few hours
before the Vice President is sworn into office. There is no President
for those few hours; the office is vacant. Agreed?
But this does NOT mean that all federal government employees have no
authority whatsoever to do their job during those few hours. Their jobs
go on; their duties and responsibilities and authority continue. This
is because they work for the institution of office of the president, not
any particular person.
> The beauty of it is that no court was needed - John Suthers, in both
> cases, vacant DA in 1996 and currently vacant AG provided the
> testimony against himself. It is right there. He swears to uphold the
> state constitution and then fails to abide by it, expressly leaving
> his office vacant. Whatever that means...
It does NOT mean that all prosecutions during that time are void. If
you think so, you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misapplying)
agency law.
> You were dancing around that simple issue for so long Larry, that I
> just felt it best to break it down a bit for anybody who is reading
> and trying to get anything out of this discussion or debate - whatever
> you want to call it.
See how easy that was? You broke it down and presented it logically,
and now I agree with you, if what you say is true, about the office
being vacant. We disagree on what consequence that has for the
employees of the office and prosecutions they bring.
> Where I was going from your admission that John Suthers is running a
> vacant office is something I thought you especially could relate to.
> You put causes, prosecutions into the courthouse. You file complaints
> that start criminal proceedings. The "judges" you put these causes
> before also swear oaths of office. And there are constitutional
> stipulations about publishing those oaths.
Stop saying that! There is no constitutional stipulation about
"publishing" an oath. Perhaps some states have such a requirement, but
not all do.
> When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
> vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properly
> installed office himself. De facto can only nurture de facto. If the
> "judge" is running a valid office, he cannot entertain the cause from
> a vacant office. That would be in violation of his oath.
Why? See what I said above. Even if there is no particular person
serving as Attorney General at a given time, there is still the office
of the Attorney General, and the members of the office have the same
powers and responsibilities as they did before.
> And of course
> if the "judge" does not have his oath properly published his office of
> "judge" is vacant and so the "defendant" abates the vacant proceedings
> as a public nuisance - basically as a civic duty. There is no
> authority in a vacant court - all that can issue are null judgments.
> Like I said, Vacant means Empty.
>
> You can pretend to understand that differently Larry. I know it is
> your job to. But I would gather some people reading this thread
> understand what I am trying to say.
I'd venture to say otherwise.
esaup...@gmail.com
> Again, I ask you: suppose the president is assassinated, or cannot
> fulfill his other duties for some reason. Now suppose it is a few hours
> before the Vice President is sworn into office. There is no President
> for those few hours; the office is vacant. Agreed?
>
> But this does NOT mean that all federal government employees have no
> authority whatsoever to do their job during those few hours. Their jobs
> go on; their duties and responsibilities and authority continue. This
> is because they work for the institution of office of the president, not
> any particular person.
Yes. They would be without authority except for emergency procedures
to immediately kick into place preventing that. And when a new
official fills the office, he or she must within 30 days publish an
oath of office. Failure to do so means the office is vacant on the
31st day and no authority can issue for execution of that official's
duties.
> It does NOT mean that all prosecutions during that time are void. If
> you think so, you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misapplying)
> agency law.
Agreed. If somebody is stupid enough to be prosecuted by a vacant
office, then they are probably guilty anyway. A lot of stupid people
stumble into being criminals.
> See how easy that was? You broke it down and presented it logically,
> and now I agree with you, if what you say is true, about the office
> being vacant. We disagree on what consequence that has for the
> employees of the office and prosecutions they bring.
I know. We have agreed that technically John Suthers admits to running
a constitutionally stipulated "vacant" office.
> Stop saying that! There is no constitutional stipulation about
> "publishing" an oath. Perhaps some states have such a requirement, but
> not all do.
Well, I know New York does but I am not going to bother finding that
for you - mainly because I have this all slam-dunk by sticking to
Colorado and John Suthers' oath/admission. Also, you say you have
sworn to uphold the New York constitution so I should not have to look
it up again for you.
> > When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
> > vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properly
> > installed office himself. De facto can only nurture de facto. If the
> > "judge" is running a valid office, he cannot entertain the cause from
> > a vacant office. That would be in violation of his oath.
>
> Why? See what I said above. Even if there is no particular person
> serving as Attorney General at a given time, there is still the office
> of the Attorney General, and the members of the office have the same
> powers and responsibilities as they did before.
What you said above is wrong Larry. Why bother stipulating an office
is "vacant" if it still holds anything; any authority or powers? Like
I keep saying, Vacant means Empty. Empty means bereft - no authority -
no powers.
> > You can pretend to understand that differently Larry. I know it is
> > your job to. But I would gather some people reading this thread
> > understand what I am trying to say.
>
> I'd venture to say otherwise.
You could be correct. The readers here have gone quiet and I suspect
it was all that misdirection in your lengthy posts before I winnowed
out the chaf. I figured we would have been well on our way to
discussing why nobody gives a Rat's Ass long before now. I mean
really! Look how long it has taken for you to even admit that because
John took 90 days to publish his oath, his office is vacant.
Now you are trying to say that there are no publication requirements?
That is what that section of the Colorado constitution is about.
Officers have to publish their oaths at either the county clerk and
recorder or the secretary of state's office within thirty days of
appointment or election. Otherwise the office is vacant like John
Suthers' office of Attorney General.
I get a feeling you have failed to publish your oath of office and are
running a vacant office too? All you have to do is look in the New
York constitution under the requirements of Officers like I did here.
If it has been more than 30 days, your office is vacant.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<aa71e754-9526-455d...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Again, I ask you: suppose the president is assassinated, or cannot
> > fulfill his other duties for some reason. Now suppose it is a few hours
> > before the Vice President is sworn into office. There is no President
> > for those few hours; the office is vacant. Agreed?
> >
> > But this does NOT mean that all federal government employees have no
> > authority whatsoever to do their job during those few hours. Their jobs
> > go on; their duties and responsibilities and authority continue. This
> > is because they work for the institution of office of the president, not
> > any particular person.
>
> Yes. They would be without authority except for emergency procedures
> to immediately kick into place preventing that.
Where do you get this from? What statute or constitutional provision?
> And when a new
> official fills the office, he or she must within 30 days publish an
> oath of office. Failure to do so means the office is vacant on the
> 31st day and no authority can issue for execution of that official's
> duties.
That person could not issue directions or execute his office, since he
does not properly hold the position. But the office exists, and it has
constitutional and statutory powers and responsibilities, regardless of
whether someone is currently holding the title or not.
> > It does NOT mean that all prosecutions during that time are void. If
> > you think so, you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misapplying)
> > agency law.
>
> Agreed.
You agree that you fundamentally misunderstand the law? Then we're done
here. I'm glad to have helped.
> If somebody is stupid enough to be prosecuted by a vacant
> office, then they are probably guilty anyway. A lot of stupid people
> stumble into being criminals.
The position of "Attorney General" may be vacant, but that does NOT mean
the office of the Attorney General is null and void.
The AG's office also represents the state when the state is sued by a
citizen. Are you saying anyone could sue the state during this time and
the state cannot defend itself? Everyone would win a default judgment!
> > See how easy that was? You broke it down and presented it logically,
> > and now I agree with you, if what you say is true, about the office
> > being vacant. We disagree on what consequence that has for the
> > employees of the office and prosecutions they bring.
>
> I know. We have agreed that technically John Suthers admits to running
> a constitutionally stipulated "vacant" office.
I have not agreed to it. I have agreed to continue this discussion as
if that contention was true, although I do not know if it is or not.
>
>
> > Stop saying that! There is no constitutional stipulation about
> > "publishing" an oath. Perhaps some states have such a requirement, but
> > not all do.
>
> Well, I know New York does but I am not going to bother finding that
> for you - mainly because I have this all slam-dunk by sticking to
> Colorado and John Suthers' oath/admission. Also, you say you have
> sworn to uphold the New York constitution so I should not have to look
> it up again for you.
New York does not. It's that simple. You admit you haven't looked it
up, so why do you claim it is so?
> > > When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
> > > vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properly
> > > installed office himself. De facto can only nurture de facto. If the
> > > "judge" is running a valid office, he cannot entertain the cause from
> > > a vacant office. That would be in violation of his oath.
> >
> > Why? See what I said above. Even if there is no particular person
> > serving as Attorney General at a given time, there is still the office
> > of the Attorney General, and the members of the office have the same
> > powers and responsibilities as they did before.
>
> What you said above is wrong Larry.
No, it isn't. Whether you like it or not.
> Why bother stipulating an office
> is "vacant" if it still holds anything; any authority or powers? Like
> I keep saying, Vacant means Empty. Empty means bereft - no authority -
> no powers.
Right. If Suthers was not properly sworn in as Attorney General, he has
no authority or power. It does not mean the office ceases to exist or
function.
> > > You can pretend to understand that differently Larry. I know it is
> > > your job to. But I would gather some people reading this thread
> > > understand what I am trying to say.
> >
> > I'd venture to say otherwise.
>
> You could be correct. The readers here have gone quiet and I suspect
> it was all that misdirection in your lengthy posts before I winnowed
> out the chaf. I figured we would have been well on our way to
> discussing why nobody gives a Rat's Ass long before now. I mean
> really! Look how long it has taken for you to even admit that because
> John took 90 days to publish his oath, his office is vacant.
I haven't admitted that, you fool.
> Now you are trying to say that there are no publication requirements?
I never said that.
> That is what that section of the Colorado constitution is about.
> Officers have to publish their oaths at either the county clerk and
> recorder or the secretary of state's office within thirty days of
> appointment or election. Otherwise the office is vacant like John
> Suthers' office of Attorney General.
>
> I get a feeling you have failed to publish your oath of office and are
> running a vacant office too?
I admit; I have no published my oath of office. Because there is no
requirement for me to do so!
> All you have to do is look in the New
> York constitution under the requirements of Officers like I did here.
> If it has been more than 30 days, your office is vacant.
I'm done with you, you're a one-trick pony and you've grown bored and
tiresome.
Dane Metcalfe
I don't understand this agency law. I understand that de facto
nurturing de facto as described above is "legal." I would probably
never attempt to argue that in a court of law, because I'm fairly
certain that I would be instructed that I consented to being
victimised somehow in these non-constitutional settings.
But David's proposition about abating the process as a nuisence... I
never considered any approach like that!
So much for volunteering for some non-judicial terrorism. Then it
wouldn't be "legal" would it?
> > You were dancing around that simple issue for so long Larry, that I
> > just felt it best to break it down a bit for anybody who is reading
> > and trying to get anything out of this discussion or debate - whatever
> > you want to call it.
>
> See how easy that was? You broke it down and presented it logically,
> and now I agree with you, if what you say is true, about the office
> being vacant. We disagree on what consequence that has for the
> employees of the office and prosecutions they bring.
>
> > Where I was going from your admission that John Suthers is running a
> > vacant office is something I thought you especially could relate to.
> > You put causes, prosecutions into the courthouse. You file complaints
> > that start criminal proceedings. The "judges" you put these causes
> > before also swear oaths of office. And there are constitutional
> > stipulations about publishing those oaths.
>
> Stop saying that! There is no constitutional stipulation about
> "publishing" an oath. Perhaps some states have such a requirement, but
> not all do.
>
> > When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
> > vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properlyonly nurture de facto. If the
esaup...@gmail.com
> > Yes. They would be without authority except for emergency procedures
> > to immediately kick into place preventing that.
>
> Where do you get this from? What statute or constitutional provision?
That is basically the 25th Amendment but it has always been held that
the Vice President will immediately fill in for the President should
he be incapacitated.
> That person could not issue directions or execute his office, since he
> does not properly hold the position. But the office exists, and it has
> constitutional and statutory powers and responsibilities, regardless of
> whether someone is currently holding the title or not.
That makes no sense. The person in the office begins executing duties
responsibly but has to get the oath published in the time allowed by
law.
> The position of "Attorney General" may be vacant, but that does NOT mean
> the office of the Attorney General is null and void.
> > I know. We have agreed that technically John Suthers admits to running
> > a constitutionally stipulated "vacant" office.
> I have not agreed to it. I have agreed to continue this discussion as
> if that contention was true, although I do not know if it is or not.
> New York does not [stipulate fidelity bonding by oath and publication - "security"]. It's that simple. You admit you haven't looked it up, so why do you claim it is so?
No. I am telling you I have looked it up. And it is more specific in
the Revised Statutes than the current constitution.
> No, it isn't. Whether you like it or not.
> > Why bother stipulating an office
> > is "vacant" if it still holds anything; any authority or powers? Like
> > I keep saying, Vacant means Empty. Empty means bereft - no authority -
> > no powers.
>
> Right. If Suthers was not properly sworn in as Attorney General, he has
> no authority or power. It does not mean the office ceases to exist or
> function.
Cool! Then you admit it again. John Suthers had 30 days to file his
oath with the secretary of state. Since nobody else with a properly
filed oath is pretending to be attorney general - the office is
vacant. I keep saying that and you keep agreeing.
> I haven't admitted that, you fool.
Yes you have. And I find that you have become insulting about it the
Tell that you know it.
> > Now you are trying to say that there are no publication requirements?
> I never said that.
Yes you did.
> > That is what that section of the Colorado constitution is about.
> > Officers have to publish their oaths at either the county clerk and
> > recorder or the secretary of state's office within thirty days of
> > appointment or election. Otherwise the office is vacant like John
> > Suthers' office of Attorney General.
>
> > I get a feeling you have failed to publish your oath of office and are
> > running a vacant office too?
>
> I admit; I have no published my oath of office. Because there is no
> requirement for me to do so!
>
> > All you have to do is look in the New
> > York constitution under the requirements of Officers like I did here.
> > If it has been more than 30 days, your office is vacant.
>
> I'm done with you, you're a one-trick pony and you've grown bored and
> tiresome.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/cons2004.htm
I am sure you are. While you were writing I looked it up. In the NY
constitution publication of oath is renewal of an officer's security.
That is the NY term for fidelity bond. And that is quite simply
binding the officer to the constitution.
For instance, how many times have you furnished your oath of office to
a defendant Larry? Never. So if you have not published it, where does
a defendant get a certified copy? How can I get it from the secretary
of state or county clerk and recorder if you have never published it -
your security?
Do you think it makes any sense that I should be dependent upon you to
provide your oath of office to me at your own discretion?
"They may be required by law to renew their security, from time to
time; and in default of giving such new security, their offices shall
be deemed vacant."
I will leave it up to you to describe the details of "renewing their
security" - publication of oath.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Deadrat
news:1e318de2-0252-46c0...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
<quote src="New York State Constitution" Article="XIII" Section="13a">
Sheriffs shall hold no other office. They may be required by law to renew
their security, from time to time; and in default of giving such new
security, their offices shall be deemed vacant.
</quote>
Larry is not a sheriff.
> So if you have not published it,
Nowhere does it say that the oath has to be published.
> where does a defendant get a certified copy?
Nowhere is a defendant guaranteed a certified copy.
> How can I get it from the secretary
> of state or county clerk and recorder if you have never published it -
> your security?
Again, Larry is not required to renew his security. If he is not
exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required to take the oath
specified.
> Do you think it makes any sense that I should be dependent upon you to
> provide your oath of office to me at your own discretion?
Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters.
> "They may be required by law to renew their security, from time to
> time; and in default of giving such new security, their offices shall
> be deemed vacant."
>
> I will leave it up to you to describe the details of "renewing their
> security" - publication of oath.
Again. In NY, this applies only to sheriffs.
As a defendant, I'd guess you have no standing to inquire as to whether
an ADA had properly taken the oath of office. If you did, then the judge
could swear in the ADA and ask if he'd taken the oath.
If an ADA was found to have been improperly invested in his office, why
do you think that gets a defendant off the hook? Would that invalidate
his arrest or the returning of a true bill by a grand jury?
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
dj...@cornell.edu
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters."
If that were true, I would still be considered 3/5 of a man and Nelson
Mandela would still be locked up!
esaup...@gmail.com
requirement for me to do so!"
So it is not a matter of renewing security with Larry. He has never
established security. What Deadrat submitted is a distortion - maybe
even an attorney obfuscation in the NY constitution.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/cons2004.htm
Search "other officers" and you will quickly see that the security
required for officers is in no way limited to the sheriff. By Larry
stomping off the discussion when it came to a little NY research
indicates that he certainly wants it to be. Dane Metcalfe's
contributions encourage me that I am not wasting breath here.
Look at "security" - fidelity bond - oath of office - surety as auto
insurance for a moment. We the inhabitants of NY want some security
that Larry Glasser has sworn out an oath of office as required in the
constitution at:
"Article XIII; Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all
officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as
shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of
their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or
affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State
of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" and no other
oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any
office of public trust..."
It would seem that in order for me to get any security about this fact
I have to stop in at the DA's office on my way and let Larry decide
for himself if he wants to give me a certified copy of his oath? So
Larry; why not just do people the courtesy of springing $6 and direct
us to where you willingly published your oath at the county clerk and
recorder's office? But if Larry refuses to provide security then his
office is vacant. He admits to having no security - a vacant office.
Deadrat comes to Larry's defense:
> Nowhere does it say that the oath has to be published.
> Nowhere is a defendant guaranteed a certified copy.
> > How can I get it from the secretary
> > of state or county clerk and recorder if you have never published it -
> > your security?
> Again, Larry is not required to renew his security. If he is not
> exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required to take the oath
> specified.
> > Do you think it makes any sense that I should be dependent upon you to
> > provide your oath of office to me at your own discretion?
> Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters.
> > "They may be required by law to renew their security, from time to
> > time; and in default of giving such new security, their offices shall
> > be deemed vacant."
>
> > I will leave it up to you to describe the details of "renewing their
> > security" - publication of oath.
> Again. In NY, this applies only to sheriffs.
"If he is not exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required
to take the oath specified." Since you include this contradictory
blurt, including ADA Larry Glasser in Article XIII Deadrat, I will go
with your defense of keeping defendants in the dark some blind loyalty
to Larry that formed before I was here. How admiralty/pirate of Larry;
a cohort named Deadrat!
But do not worry readers, the rubber meets the road at last...
____________________________
> As a defendant, I'd guess you have no standing to inquire as to whether
> an ADA had properly taken the oath of office. If you did, then the judge
> could swear in the ADA and ask if he'd taken the oath.
> If an ADA was found to have been improperly invested in his office, why
> do you think that gets a defendant off the hook? Would that invalidate
> his arrest or the returning of a true bill by a grand jury?
____________________________
Here is the abatement process in a nutshell. If Larry was prosecuting
me I would go across the street to the county clerk and recorder and
ask for the security for Larry Glasser ADA. Of course they would have
none since Larry admits it does not exist. I would then get a
Certificate of Fact that Larry has no oath of office on file there. It
does not matter when, let's say before hand, when I first found out
Larry's name and Registration # (remember he is not licensed, he is a
member of the NY Bar or at least has passed the Bar to be accepted to
"practice" law) when I first met Larry I asked him for his oath of
office because I would like some "security" that he is bound to the
constitutions. Either he gave it to me or not. If he did, then he is
expected to know that within thirty days of accepting his DA
appointment he was to validate his office by publishing that security.
Every term in fact - that is what the clause means and Deadrat - that
is for "other officers" too. Maybe not by statute for Larry but that
is what brought up this thread, remember?
__________________________
"Do you think every A.D.A in major jurisdictions like Cook County, Los
Angeles, or the boroughs of New York City know the D.A. personally?
Do you think the D.A. is personally involved in each of the tens of
thousands of cases a year that occur in these jurisdictions?
He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit? Not free reign, but
I have wide lattitude to employ my discretion. I do report to other,
more senior, attorneys, though.
Who takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss? Depending on
the magnitude of the screwup, it could be me, or my boss, or all the
way up to the D.A. himself. But I haven't had any
screwups that significant, so I just don't know."
__________________________
I have been accepting that Larry's DA appointer there may be able to
cover the entire pool of ADAs with his oath of office for the
security. But if Larry Glasser has an oath of office at all, then it
would logically follow that I do not have to approach him, especially
should I think him a jerk and not want to let him cast the illusion it
is up to him whether I get it in my hands or not. Therefore there
should be publication of every oath - and Larry should have done that
within thirty days of appointment as a courtesy even if not specified
in the NY constitution.
So Deadrat;
Let's pretend Larry's security is a formal bond for $2.5M - see? Like
auto insurance that his boss takes out in the name of the taxpayer for
that really big screwup - like malpractice insurance. The "test"
before we give Larry a driver license to operate the ADA office, to
practice law, is not just the Bar exam - it is a security - the oath
of office. We get him to swear out an oath of good behavior.
We the inhabitants and taxpayers want "security" that the DA did not
appoint some clown who will be falsely imprisoning us so that the
State of NY gets sued and we have to dip into that $2.5M bond to cover
the injury. So Deadrat - do not limit security and renewing a security
to the sheriff when it clearly includes "other officers".
In Larry's case, if I requested in front of witnesses his oath, or
better yet at the arraignment he would probably promise to give it to
me then do whatever he could to prevent me from ever getting it. Fine.
I have the transcript or an affidavit for evidence he has no security
- no oath of office. I put that with the Certificate of Fact from the
county clerk and recorder's office and abate his prosecution. I let
Larry's testimony - or the testimony of his appointing DA like I
already did in 1996 with John Suthers testify for me.
On the record are my attempts to validate the DA/ADA office coming
against me and strong evidence, in Larry's case we even have his
admission, that there never was a security - much less would he be
renewing it upon reappointment or with a new term, or under a new DA
or whatever is required by the Revised Statutes.
Now ask yourself if I have presented lack of security and evidence of
a vacant office prosecuting me on Larry, to you, his attorney brethren
at bench entertaining a vacant prosecution - would you assume I have
not already collected a Certificate of Fact on you as "judge"? But
let's give you as judge the benefit of the doubt - how could you allow
the proceedings to go forth - now knowing Larry and his boss DA are
prosecuting out of a vacant office - without security?
In other words, Deadrat;
The reason the NY constitution is so vague about security - oath of
office is simple. It is foundation of good behavior and well known to
anybody read in the law. It is defined clearly elsewhere in the law
and when I touched on that.:
"I'm done with you, you're a one-trick pony and you've grown bored and
tiresome."
I know he was up late at the time. So I expect Mr. Glasser will be
back with us when he gets back here to read Deadrat jumping in to
defend him.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=546
"The oath of office must be filed, however, with the clerk of the
sponsor. Community colleges should obtain a copy of the form
appropriate to their sponsor that is utilized in the appointment of
all other trustees of the college."
See there Larry? I just go get the oath from the "clerk of the
sponsor". That is publication even in an NGO environment.
Are you actually going to tell us that you do not know where you are
to file your oath so that the victims you persecute might get
"security" that you even have one? I suspect that Larry is a little
anxious about all those people he has put in prison with a security
bond. Now they can sue him in the personal capacity of Larry Glasser.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> If an ADA was found to have been improperly invested in his office, why
> do you think that gets a defendant off the hook? Would that invalidate
> his arrest or the returning of a true bill by a grand jury?
There was a situation once - many years ago - where it was found out
that an ADA was not a properly admitted member of the bar (I have no
idea how this person slipped through the cracks, it was many years ago).
He was an ADA for several years before it was discovered, and it was,
defendants who were convicted on cases he was assigned to started
appealing their convictions. They lost, and all of this person's
convictions were upheld.
Larry
<86d9d029-869f-4b5c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
dj...@cornell.edu wrote:
> "Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters."
> If that were true, I would still be considered 3/5 of a man and Nelson
> Mandela would still be locked up!
No, it wouldn't. Because the laws changed.
Larry
<1870936a-ce42-46cf...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> Therefore there
> should be publication of every oath - and Larry should have done that
> within thirty days of appointment as a courtesy even if not specified
> in the NY constitution.
Thank you for finally admitting that this is not specified in the NY
Constitution.
But I'll give you some more information, which should rock your world:
- The oath administered to me and which I swore to was verbal/oral. It
was not written or recorded in any way.
- This oath is not "published" in any way.
- New York has no such document as a "statement of fact."
- My office does not have "security" or a bond for me or any other
attorney who works for it. Like most major cities, we're self-insured.
- There is no document on file with the secretary or state or
city/county clerk's office regarding my job, or taking an oath for my
job.
- Lastly, I am not the person you claim I am.
Larry
<3b2871d3-ba7e-4d7f...@s48g2000hss.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a hint for Larry;
>
>
> http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=546
>
> "The oath of office must be filed, however, with the clerk of the
> sponsor. Community colleges should obtain a copy of the form
> appropriate to their sponsor that is utilized in the appointment of
> all other trustees of the college."
>
> See there Larry? I just go get the oath from the "clerk of the
> sponsor". That is publication even in an NGO environment.
Which would only be relevant if I worked for the State University of New
York!
Are you really this obtuse? Or just delusional?
Deadrat
news:86d9d029-869f-4b5c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 24, 3:28 am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> esaupha...@gmail.com wrote
>> innews:1e318de2-0252-46c0-bebf-3d18b3c26c66@n20
You have misunderstood antebellum law. Had you been a slave in the
American south, you would have been considered no man at all under the
law. In the words of Dred Scott v Sanford, you would have had "no rights
that the white man was bound to respect. Nevertheless, you would have
counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census, thus increasing
the power of your masters in the House of Representatives and the
Electoral College.
In other words, thanks for making my point for me.
I don't dispute that sense may catch the law and change it, but in a head
to head confrontation, the law trumps.
> and Nelson Mandela would still be locked up!
I'll restrict my comments to the US of A, leaving aside the U of SA.
Deadrat
news:1870936a-ce42-46cf...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> "I admit; I have not published my oath of office. Because there is no
> requirement for me to do so!"
>
> So it is not a matter of renewing security with Larry. He has never
> established security.
The Constitute of New York does not require Larry to "establish"
security; it requires him to take an oath. If it is necessary to
establish that he has taken the oath, a court may depose either the oath
taker or the oath adiminister.
> What Deadrat submitted is a distortion - maybe
> even an attorney obfuscation in the NY constitution.
>
> http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/cons2004.htm
Go take a look. It says that Sheriffs may hold no other office and they
may be asked to restablish their security. Note the "may," which is not
a "must."
> Search "other officers" and you will quickly see that the security
> required for officers is in no way limited to the sheriff.
Other officers -- and it is not clear that Larry is one -- must take an
oath. That's all it says. Perhaps you can point me to the article and
section that says otherwise.
But nothing in the Constitution of New York demands that the oath taker
do anything but take the oath. The document doesn't demand publication
or certification, and it gives you no standing to demand proof.
> Deadrat comes to Larry's defense:
>
>> Nowhere does it say that the oath has to be published.
>
>> Nowhere is a defendant guaranteed a certified copy.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Point me to a state constitutional
provision or a state statute or a state court ruling that requires that
Larry's oath be published and that you be guaranteed a certified copy.
>> > How can I get it from the secretary
>> > of state or county clerk and recorder if you have never published
>> > it - your security?
>
>> Again, Larry is not required to renew his security. If he is not
>> exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required to take the
>> oath specified.
>
>> > Do you think it makes any sense that I should be dependent upon you
>> > to provide your oath of office to me at your own discretion?
>
>> Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters.
>
>> > "They may be required by law to renew their security, from time to
>> > time; and in default of giving such new security, their offices
>> > shall be deemed vacant."
>>
>> > I will leave it up to you to describe the details of "renewing
>> > their security" - publication of oath.
>
>> Again. In NY, this applies only to sheriffs.
>
> "If he is not exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required
> to take the oath specified." Since you include this contradictory
> blurt, including ADA Larry Glasser in Article XIII Deadrat, I will go
> with your defense of keeping defendants in the dark some blind loyalty
> to Larry that formed before I was here. How admiralty/pirate of Larry;
> a cohort named Deadrat!
What does this even mean?
> But do not worry readers, the rubber meets the road at last...
> ____________________________
>
>> As a defendant, I'd guess you have no standing to inquire as to
>> whether an ADA had properly taken the oath of office. If you did,
>> then the judg
> e
>> could swear in the ADA and ask if he'd taken the oath.
>
>> If an ADA was found to have been improperly invested in his office,
>> why do you think that gets a defendant off the hook? Would that
>> invalidate his arrest or the returning of a true bill by a grand
>> jury?
> ____________________________
>
> Here is the abatement process in a nutshell. If Larry was prosecuting
> me I would go across the street to the county clerk and recorder and
> ask for the security for Larry Glasser ADA. Of course they would have
> none since Larry admits it does not exist.
True.
> I would then get a
> Certificate of Fact that Larry has no oath of office on file there.
Please tell me what a "Certificate of Fact" is, how you get one, and
what standing it has in New York.
> It
> does not matter when, let's say before hand, when I first found out
> Larry's name and Registration # (remember he is not licensed, he is a
> member of the NY Bar or at least has passed the Bar to be accepted to
> "practice" law)
He's not licensed?
> when I first met Larry I asked him for his oath of
> office because I would like some "security" that he is bound to the
> constitutions. Either he gave it to me or not. If he did, then he is
> expected to know that within thirty days of accepting his DA
> appointment he was to validate his office by publishing that security.
Could you point me to the statute or precedent that requires that Larry
validate his office?
> Every term in fact - that is what the clause means and Deadrat - that
> is for "other officers" too.
What does "Every term in fact" mean?
> Maybe not by statute for Larry but that is what brought up this
> thread, remember?
Ah, not by statute. And it's not in the state constitution. Is there a
court ruling that requires this publication? Can you point me to it? If
you have no statute, constitutional provision, or court ruling, what have
you got?
> __________________________
> "Do you think every A.D.A in major jurisdictions like Cook County, Los
> Angeles, or the boroughs of New York City know the D.A. personally?
>
> Do you think the D.A. is personally involved in each of the tens of
> thousands of cases a year that occur in these jurisdictions?
>
> He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit? Not free reign, but
> I have wide lattitude to employ my discretion. I do report to other,
> more senior, attorneys, though.
>
> Who takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss? Depending on
> the magnitude of the screwup, it could be me, or my boss, or all the
> way up to the D.A. himself. But I haven't had any
> screwups that significant, so I just don't know."
> __________________________
>
> I have been accepting that Larry's DA appointer there may be able to
> cover the entire pool of ADAs with his oath of office for the
> security. But if Larry Glasser has an oath of office at all, then it
> would logically follow that I do not have to approach him, especially
> should I think him a jerk and not want to let him cast the illusion it
> is up to him whether I get it in my hands or not. Therefore there
> should be publication of every oath - and Larry should have done that
> within thirty days of appointment as a courtesy even if not specified
> in the NY constitution.
Well, maybe it follows logically, but you'll have to show that it follows
legally. You've already admitted there's no statute that requires
publication. Now you've admitted it's not specified in the NY
constitution. That leaves a court ruling. Do you have one?
>
> So Deadrat;
>
> Let's pretend Larry's security is a formal bond for $2.5M - see?
Why should we pretend that? Where does it say that Larry has to post a
formal bond to take office?
> Like
> auto insurance that his boss takes out in the name of the taxpayer for
> that really big screwup - like malpractice insurance. The "test"
> before we give Larry a driver license to operate the ADA office, to
> practice law, is not just the Bar exam - it is a security - the oath
> of office. We get him to swear out an oath of good behavior.
Well, "we" don't do anything. Somebody, presumably the DA, gets him to
swear the oath. But it's not "like auto insurance" unless you have some
law to point to that it makes it like that.
> We the inhabitants and taxpayers want "security" that the DA did not
> appoint some clown who will be falsely imprisoning us so that the
> State of NY gets sued and we have to dip into that $2.5M bond to cover
> the injury.
You can want anything, but you get what the law specifies. Where is it
specified that Larry has to have a $2.5M bond to cover him?
> So Deadrat - do not limit security and renewing a security
> to the sheriff when it clearly includes "other officers".
I'm not limiting anything. Read the NY constitution. Officers have to
take an oath, and Sheriffs may have to renew security.
> In Larry's case, if I requested in front of witnesses his oath,
Where would this be?
> or
> better yet at the arraignment he would probably promise to give it to
> me then do whatever he could to prevent me from ever getting it.
At arraignment, you would be restricted to entering a plea.
> Fine.
> I have the transcript or an affidavit for evidence he has no security
> - no oath of office.
How did you get this?
> I put that with the Certificate of Fact from the
> county clerk and recorder's office and abate his prosecution.
How did you get this?
> I let
> Larry's testimony - or the testimony of his appointing DA like I
> already did in 1996 with John Suthers testify for me.
Let's assume that you can get a judge to agree (and it wouldn't be at
arraignment) that it's important to find out whether Larry ever took his
oath of office. The judge puts Larry and the administering DA on the
stand and asks them, "When and where did Larry take his oath?" They give
time and place. Now what are you going to do?
> On the record are my attempts to validate the DA/ADA office coming
> against me and strong evidence, in Larry's case we even have his
> admission, that there never was a security - much less would he be
> renewing it upon reappointment or with a new term, or under a new DA
> or whatever is required by the Revised Statutes.
Could we have a pointer to the statute?
> Now ask yourself if I have presented lack of security and evidence of
> a vacant office prosecuting me on Larry, to you, his attorney brethren
> at bench entertaining a vacant prosecution - would you assume I have
> not already collected a Certificate of Fact on you as "judge"? But
> let's give you as judge the benefit of the doubt - how could you allow
> the proceedings to go forth - now knowing Larry and his boss DA are
> prosecuting out of a vacant office - without security?
If I were a very patient judge, I might ask you to produce the legal
requirement that Larry publish his oath and that he provide "security."
Then I might ask you to provide a legal basis for your standing to ask
for this information. What would you reply?
> In other words, Deadrat;
>
> The reason the NY constitution is so vague about security - oath of
> office is simple. It is foundation of good behavior and well known to
> anybody read in the law. It is defined clearly elsewhere in the law
> and when I touched on that.:
Please tell me where "in the law" this is defined so clearly. I thought
you just said that it's vague.
> "I'm done with you, you're a one-trick pony and you've grown bored and
> tiresome."
>
> I know he was up late at the time. So I expect Mr. Glasser will be
> back with us when he gets back here to read Deadrat jumping in to
> defend him.
Larry can defend himself if he needs defense. I'm asking for a NY
constitutional provision, a NY statute, or a NY court ruling that
requires that an ADA publish his oath and provide a bond that he has
taken it. Should be easy to answer.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
>
esaup...@gmail.com
> "The oath of office must be filed, however, with the clerk of the
> sponsor. Community colleges should obtain a copy of the form
> appropriate to their sponsor that is utilized in the appointment of
> all other trustees of the college."
> See there Larry? I just go get the oath from the "clerk of the
> sponsor". That is publication even in an NGO environment.
"Which would only be relevant if I worked for the State University of
New
York!
Are you really this obtuse? Or just delusional?"
______________________________
No problem Larry; just making sure that you had actually clicked on
John Suthers' admission he is running a constitutionally vacant
office.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg
______________________________
Therefore there should be publication of every oath - and Larry should
have done that within thirty days of appointment as a courtesy even if
not specified in the NY constitution.
> Thank you for finally admitting that this is not specified in the NY
> Constitution.
______________________________
1 > But I'll give you some more information, which should rock your
world:
>
2 > - The oath administered to me and which I swore to was verbal/
oral. It
> was not written or recorded in any way.
>
3 > - This oath is not "published" in any way.
>
4 > - New York has no such document as a "statement of fact."
>
5 > - My office does not have "security" or a bond for me or any other
> attorney who works for it. Like most major cities, we're self-insured.
>
6 > - There is no document on file with the secretary or state or
> city/county clerk's office regarding my job, or taking an oath for my
> job.
>
7 > - Lastly, I am not the person you claim I am.
Except for point 7, I was making all those points all along. It is
just better to get the admission you and your bosses the DA and AG are
running vacant offices. The admission there is no recordation and the
the oaths are simply verbal is just icing on that particular cake.
You are not prosecuting from any executive or judicial office.
Strictly administrative. It is difficult to even find revised statutes
there over the Internet. But that is where I have seen the 30 day
stipulation for you publishing your oath. Being New York I did not
keep a History back to that particular webpage.
Instead I will explain it all again this way.
http://www.lawrevision.state.ny.us/
Where we find quotes like:
_______________________________
"New York State Law Revision Commission
Revitalizing the law through reform and legislationThe Establishment
of the Commission
The Law Revision Commission was created by Chapter 597 of the Laws of
1934 which enacted Article 4-A of the Legislative Law. The Commission
is the oldest continuous agency in the common-law world devoted to law
reform through legislation."
_______________________________
Pay particular attention to the year - 1934. This was when all the
states in Governors' Convention were reforming administrative
government around the recent constitutional suspension for FDR's War
on the Great Depression.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg
The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act was amended to change the German
nationals to US citizens. Therefore all the states in convention were
revising the judiciaries to distance people from the constitution.
Just like you feel you can do with a verbal and nonpublished oath of
office. I wish I could attach the contemporary Colorado letter from
the attorney general but I will quote it:
"Dear Governor Johnson:
In accordance with your request I appointed a Committee to consider
the question of the abolishment of County Courts. The report of that
Committee, prepared by a sub-committee is enclosed herewith.
You recall that when we conferred with you an explanation was made
regarding the difficulties encountered in attempting to change one
branch of judiciary without a complete revision of the whole
system..."
I have to doubt that any of this rocks your world because you do not
even understand that six of your seven points all back what I am
saying - My certainty that not only is your office vacant, but so are
your DA boss' and the AG principal's offices.
That is why when one understands the voluntary nature of the bonding
into that administrative system, simple prosecutions can be abated.
One fellow who has executed this process abated felony attempted
murder. Sure they pounded on his door a couple times and told his
neighbors to be prepared for them to move in with SWAT etc. Never
happened though. The DA understands that the defendant must volunteer
into being chattel to waive all right to judicial review - strictly
administrative prosecutions.
I enjoyed this commentary on administrative summons. It is on the
exact same level of government you describe about your office -
strictly vacant and only authorized by the volunteering of the
defendant.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf
I mean really Larry! Why, if I can get a DA fired and even advise
others to abate by lack of written oath and publication of the same
successfully, why in the world would I allow you and your vacant
office and vacant bosses to prosecute me? Without any fidelity bond I
would come after you personally and that is why you have insurance.
All that tells anybody is "deep pockets". So be nice to me or I will
link this thread to your alleged and vacant "DA" boss. That insurance
company will probably run away in failure pretty quick when and if
this comes out in the NY paper there.
In other words, if you are pretending to be anything more than
government in miniature - administrative hybrid of executive,
legislative and judicial combined - you are fraudulently depriving
every defendant prosecuted from your office of proper judicial review.
The "judge" pretending to have a properly published oath of office is
pretending to be judicial when he is another attorney just like you in
the Bar without a license, acting administratively. You pretending to
be executive and him pretending to be judicial is keeping people from
demanding oaths, and that keeps you from being bound to the
constitutions. You may say you are bound by fidelity oath all you want
but when it comes down to me proving it? Well I am supposed to trust
your vacant DA and AG bosses? They did not publish their oaths! I
would not trust them as far as I could throw them unless it was off a
dock.
Now granted, in Christmas cheer to be polite I will allow that you may
want to believe that a verbal oath with other verbal oath attorneys
cuts it and authorizes you to put people in jail on any amount of
evidence. But that is not true.
In Colorado we simply haven't groomed the recordation requirement from
the constitution like in NY. I will simply remind the readers that
John Suthers, obvious by his attached admission link, figured a verbal
oath was okay between him and Mary Mularkey - fellow Esquire #5430.
Then when the secretary of state told him somebody was coming back the
next day demanding a Certificate of Fact, he and Mary scrambled to get
it all in writing and properly filed - even if it was obviously to
late to validate the office of Attorney General.
So you Larry are under the impression that nobody is required to
publish written oaths around your office? You actually believe that
you are not covered by the "security" clause of the NY constitution?
If that were true, you would not have a private insurance policy
covering your behavior in lieu. Are you trying to convince us that it
is your boss' insurance company that required you swear out an oath?
Even verbally??
That is getting a bit hilarious Larry.
Thanks for the chuckles. Merry Christmas.
David Merrill.
P.S. I may look for the requirements for security there in NY. You may
be able to prosecute volunteers with just a private insurance policy
and a company that I doubt requires an oath to uphold the
constitutions. Just the same though, you will not get anybody who
knows the law arraigned much less convicted. And if you railroad
somebody demanding security better than that and actual judicial
process, you open yourselves up to test that insurance settlement.
Deadrat
news:3b2871d3-ba7e-4d7f...@s48g2000hss.googlegroups.com:
> Here's a hint for Larry;
>
>
> http://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=546
>
> "The oath of office must be filed, however, with the clerk of the
> sponsor. Community colleges should obtain a copy of the form
> appropriate to their sponsor that is utilized in the appointment of
> all other trustees of the college."
Almost. Quoting from SUNY regulations won't help unless you think that
Larry is working for the state university system. But try here:
<quote src="New York Civil Service Code" Section="62">
Constitutional oath upon appointment. Every person employed by the
state or any of its civil divisions, except an employee in the labor
class, before he shall be entitled to enter upon the discharge of any of
his duties, shall take and file an oath or affirmation in the form and
language prescribed by the constitution for executive, legislative and
judicial officers, which may be administered by any officer authorized
to take the acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of real property,
or by an officer in whose office the oath is required to be filed....
Such oath or statement shall be required only upon original appointment
or upon a new appointment following an interruption of continuous
service, .... The oath or statement of every state employee shall be
filed in the office of the secretary of state, ....
</quote>
Thank goodness! Finally, a statutory provision. What was so hard about
that? So you can go to the office of the secretary of state and see the
oath that Larry signed. Note that there's nothing about "security," and
it specifically says that Larry doesn't have to renew his oath.
> See there Larry? I just go get the oath from the "clerk of the
> sponsor". That is publication even in an NGO environment.
>
> Are you actually going to tell us that you do not know where you are
> to file your oath so that the victims you persecute might get
> "security" that you even have one?
If I understand the law correctly (and I might not have), the DA's office
probably took care of the filing.
> I suspect that Larry is a little
> anxious about all those people he has put in prison with a security
> bond.
Do you mean "without a security bond"? Where does the law require such a
bond? It only requires an oath.
> Now they can sue him in the personal capacity of Larry Glasser.
I'd say Larry isn't losing any sleep over this.
Just a guess.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
>
esaup...@gmail.com
I wish you a Merry Christmas too. But I am not spending much time on
your posts since I have Larry who has disclosed he is an ADA. The
things you are posting are incorrect based in the vagueness of the NY
constitution. The NY constitution is not in any way allowed to deviate
from law and allow public officials and especially officers of the
court system to wander from being bound to the constitutions and
publishing that bond. We find that Larry admits he is bound to his
oath and takes it seriously. Larry has just been mistaught by his
boss.
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
"§ 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath
of
office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
court
system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
office of
court administration, before he shall be entitled to enter upon
the
discharge of any of his official duties. An oath of office
may be
administered by a judge of the court of appeals, the attorney
general,
or by any officer authorized to take, within the state,
the
acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of real property, or
by an
officer in whose office the oath is required to be filed or by his
duly
designated assistant, or may be administered to any member of a
body of
officers, by a presiding officer or clerk, thereof, who shall have
taken
an oath of office..."
Note in particular:
"...shall take and file..."
One cannot file a verbal oath. Place of filing:
"...or by any officer authorized to take, within the
state, the
acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of real property..."
The Register of Deeds in that county - what was it? - the boroughs of
NY city, is the equivalent of what I have been calling the county
clerk and recorder.
Publication of all the official oaths of office is required in NY.
If you both were not liars; you would have saved me time proving that.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Deadrat
sjc.supernews.net:
No, he's just lazy. The SUNY regulation points to the Civil Service Law,
section 62, which I've quoted in part in a previous post. My amateur
reading says you're an unclassified employee.
If I'm right, my guess is you signed the oath upon taking office, and some
clerk whisked it away to the Secretary of State. Nothing about bonds
though. And renewals are specifically not required.
I'm not sure how esauphacus would have standing to challenge your fitness
as an ADA based upon your alleged failure to file your oath. Probably not
at arraignment, though.
Deadrat
news:ffcd868c-38c2-40de...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Dear Deadrat;
>
>
> I wish you a Merry Christmas too.
Too? When did I wish you a Merry Christmas?
> But I am not spending much time on
> your posts since I have Larry who has disclosed he is an ADA.
Spend your time where you want. You think you're hurting my feelings?
> The
> things you are posting are incorrect based in the vagueness of the NY
> constitution.
The things I'm posting are mainly questions, which you can't seem to
answer in a timely and straightforward way. I don't know what "the
vaugueness of the NY constitution" has to do with this. In any case,
the constitution seems pretty clear to me.
> The NY constitution is not in any way allowed to deviate
> from law
What does that mean? The NY constiution is the overriding law of the
state.
> and allow public officials and especially officers of the
> court system to wander from being bound to the constitutions and
> publishing that bond.
We're at least at the point that I believe that employees of the state
of NY are supposed to take an oath and file it. I don't see any
evidence that Larry is supposed to have a bond, though.
> We find that Larry admits he is bound to his
> oath and takes it seriously. Larry has just been mistaught by his
> boss.
>
> http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
>
> "§ 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath
> of office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
> court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
> office of court administration, before he shall be entitled to
> enter upon the discharge of any of his official duties. An
> oath of office may be administered by a judge of the court of appeals,
> the attorney general, or by any officer authorized to take,
> within the state, the acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of
> real property, or by an officer in whose office the oath is
> required to be filed or by his duly designated assistant, or may be
> administered to any member of a body of officers, by a presiding
> officer or clerk, thereof, who shall have taken an oath of office..."
>
> Note in particular:
>
> "...shall take and file..."
>
> One cannot file a verbal oath.
You mean oral. All oaths are verbal. I've never heard of oath by
gesticulation.
> Place of filing:
>
> "...or by any officer authorized to take, within the
> state, the acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of real
> property..."
>
> The Register of Deeds in that county - what was it? - the boroughs of
> NY city, is the equivalent of what I have been calling the county
> clerk and recorder.
The boroughs of New York City are Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and
Staten Island. These are respectively coterminous with but distinct from
the counties New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond.
> Publication of all the official oaths of office is required in NY.
Seems so.
> If you both were not liars; you would have saved me time proving that.
Regardless of the state of our truthfulness, you need to back up your
claims. You'd have saved everyone time if you'd just quoted the statute
in the first place.
I'll bet Larry signed his oath, and it's on file with some state office.
Now shall we look for the statute that requires Larry to have a bond or
to renew it periodically?
And by "we," I mean "you."
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
>
esaup...@gmail.com
office."
Right! Maybe you should read Larry's post before you start betting
real money.
Deadrat
@j64g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:
It's just an expression. Sorry to disapppoint you: there's no money
involved.
esaup...@gmail.com
"Now shall we look for the statute that requires Larry to have a bond
or
to renew it periodically?
And by "we," I mean "you.""
I will seal this up with it. Larry is an officer of the court.
Public Officers; Article II §10
§ 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath of
office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
office of court administration, before he shall be entitled to
enter upon the discharge of any of his official duties. An
oath of office may be administered by a judge of the court of appeals,
the attorney general, or by any officer authorized to
take, within the state, the acknowledgment of the execution of a
deed of real property, or by an officer in whose office the
oath...
Deadrat saying that Larry probably took a written oath and somebody
whisked it away before Larry could register what he had signed; that
does nothing to detract from the satisfaction of finding that a DA is
either lying through his teeth or that the law profession is so dumbed
down that Larry does not realize the insurance bond depends on Larry
and his coworkers following the law. Which Larry admits he has not
done.
I knew it. Larry is personally liable for invalid prosecutions and
defrauding courts since the 31st day he was at work and his office
became invalid - vacant. - Unless of course he gets his boss to admit
to fraud - defrauding Larry into believing the verbal oath was lawful.
That is kind of a gas though, either with Larry or his boss, district
attorneys who do not even look at the law enough to know the oath of
office is a bond and without that bond in place they are breaking the
law to do their jobs.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Deadrat
4c7df8...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> Dead Rat says:
>
>
> "Now shall we look for the statute that requires Larry to have a bond
> or
> to renew it periodically?
>
>
> And by "we," I mean "you.""
>
> I will seal this up with it. Larry is an officer of the court.
>
> Public Officers; Article II §10
>
> § 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath of
> office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
> court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
> office of court administration, before he shall be entitled to
> enter upon the discharge of any of his official duties. An
> oath of office may be administered by a judge of the court of appeals,
> the attorney general, or by any officer authorized to
> take, within the state, the acknowledgment of the execution of a
> deed of real property, or by an officer in whose office the
> oath...
>
> Deadrat saying that Larry probably took a written oath and somebody
> whisked it away before Larry could register what he had signed;
Whoa! Let's hold up here. Larry doesn't have to register the oath under
NY state law. His signed document just has to be deposited with an
appropriate office.
> that
> does nothing to detract from the satisfaction of finding that a DA is
> either lying through his teeth or that the law profession is so dumbed
> down that Larry does not realize the insurance bond depends on Larry
> and his coworkers following the law. Which Larry admits he has not
> done.
Keep holding your horses. Nowhere in anything you've cited is there any
requirement for a bond. Just an oath.
> I knew it. Larry is personally liable for invalid prosecutions and
> defrauding courts since the 31st day he was at work and his office
> became invalid - vacant. -
Fraud requires intent. And nowhere is there any 30 day rule mentioned in
your cites. Whatever work Larry has done has been on behalf of the state
of New York, whether he followed the rules or not. He won't be
personally liable for anything he's done. Even if he is, what damages do
you think any defendant has suffered?
> Unless of course he gets his boss to admit
> to fraud - defrauding Larry into believing the verbal oath was lawful.
> That is kind of a gas though, either with Larry or his boss, district
> attorneys who do not even look at the law enough to know the oath of
> office is a bond and without that bond in place they are breaking the
> law to do their jobs.
Before we go around accusing anyone of fraud -- and by "we," I mean
"you" -- let's find out whether the NY secretary of state (or other
repository) has a copy of Larry's oath.
And we still don't have any law that says a bond is required.
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
Larry
wrote:
> esaup...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:1870936a-ce42-46cf...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > "I admit; I have not published my oath of office. Because there is no
> > requirement for me to do so!"
> >
> > So it is not a matter of renewing security with Larry. He has never
> > established security.
>
> The Constitute of New York does not require Larry to "establish"
> security; it requires him to take an oath. If it is necessary to
> establish that he has taken the oath, a court may depose either the oath
> taker or the oath adiminister.
And think that it was esauphacus who accused me of juxtaposing New York
and Colorado constitutional requirements!
Larry
<64acb4b3-5593-45d9...@c49g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Therefore there should be publication of every oath - and Larry should
> have done that within thirty days of appointment as a courtesy even if
> not specified in the NY constitution.
>
> > Thank you for finally admitting that this is not specified in the NY
> > Constitution.
>
>
> world:
> >
> 2 > - The oath administered to me and which I swore to was verbal/
> oral. It
> > was not written or recorded in any way.
> >
> 3 > - This oath is not "published" in any way.
> >
> 4 > - New York has no such document as a "statement of fact."
> >
> 5 > - My office does not have "security" or a bond for me or any other
> > attorney who works for it. Like most major cities, we're self-insured.
> >
> 6 > - There is no document on file with the secretary or state or
> > city/county clerk's office regarding my job, or taking an oath for my
> > job.
> >
> 7 > - Lastly, I am not the person you claim I am.
>
> Except for point 7, I was making all those points all along. It is
> just better to get the admission you and your bosses the DA and AG are
> running vacant offices. The admission there is no recordation and the
> the oaths are simply verbal is just icing on that particular cake.
Why? Recordation and certification, like a security bond, are not
required by New York state!
That New York procedures do not comply with Colorado's constitutional
requirements is wholly irrelevant.
<snip>
> I have to doubt that any of this rocks your world because you do not
> even understand that six of your seven points all back what I am
> saying - My certainty that not only is your office vacant, but so are
> your DA boss' and the AG principal's offices.
Why? Because they did not comport with Colorado's constitutional
mandates?
<snip>
> I mean really Larry! Why, if I can get a DA fired and even advise
> others to abate by lack of written oath and publication of the same
> successfully, why in the world would I allow you and your vacant
> office and vacant bosses to prosecute me? Without any fidelity bond I
> would come after you personally and that is why you have insurance.
First, I don't have insurance, for two reasons. Number one, I'm not
required to have any. Number two, I have immunity. And I bet that's
what really stings you, isn't it?
> All that tells anybody is "deep pockets". So be nice to me or I will
> link this thread to your alleged and vacant "DA" boss. That insurance
> company will probably run away in failure pretty quick when and if
> this comes out in the NY paper there.
What insurance company? I told you already, New York City and State are
self-insured for things like false arrest and malicious prosecution
claims, which rarely succeed because of the immunity I described above.
<snip>
>
> So you Larry are under the impression that nobody is required to
> publish written oaths around your office?
Yes.
> You actually believe that
> you are not covered by the "security" clause of the NY constitution?
Yes.
> If that were true, you would not have a private insurance policy
> covering your behavior in lieu.
I don't have a private insurance policy covering my behavior!
> Are you trying to convince us that it
> is your boss' insurance company that required you swear out an oath?
No, because my boss does not have an insurance company.
> Even verbally??
>
> That is getting a bit hilarious Larry.
Yes, it is.
> Thanks for the chuckles. Merry Christmas.
>
> David Merrill.
>
>
> P.S. I may look for the requirements for security there in NY.
Please do, and tell me when you give up trying to find them.
> You may
> be able to prosecute volunteers with just a private insurance policy
> and a company that I doubt requires an oath to uphold the
> constitutions. Just the same though, you will not get anybody who
> knows the law arraigned much less convicted.
"Getting someone arraigned" is not something I try to do. Arraignment
is for the defendant's benefit. Without arraignment, they'd be held in
jail indefinitely without being formally charged with anything!
> And if you railroad
> somebody demanding security better than that and actual judicial
> process, you open yourselves up to test that insurance settlement.
What insurance settlement?
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
Deadrat, as usual you do more research than others... but there's a key
clause in here that you didn't pick up on. "The oath or statement of
every STATE EMPLOYEE shall be filed..." I am not a state employee,
rendering that filing requirement completely inapplicable to me and my
job.
Larry
<ffcd868c-38c2-40de...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, note in particular that this provision applies to "every
officer" and "every judicial officer." I am neither, as these terms are
used in this section.
>
> One cannot file a verbal oath. Place of filing:
>
> "...or by any officer authorized to take, within the
> state, the
> acknowledgment of the execution of a deed of real property..."
>
> The Register of Deeds in that county - what was it? - the boroughs of
> NY city, is the equivalent of what I have been calling the county
> clerk and recorder.
New York City boroughs do not have "register[s] of deeds."
> Publication of all the official oaths of office is required in NY.
Says who? Cite either a constitutional provision, statute, or judicial
decision that requires that ALL official oaths of office be published
here:
esaup...@gmail.com
"Whoa! Let's hold up here. Larry doesn't have to register the oath
under
NY state law. His signed document just has to be deposited with an
appropriate office."
I was speaking of your comment that Larry probably signed a written
oath and it got whisked away without him realizing he signed it. -
"Registering" in his mind that he has signed it.
> P.S. I may look for the requirements for security there in NY.
Please do, and tell me when you give up trying to find them.
__________________________
It did not take very long - I have cited and linked your bond
requirement in my posts above. It would seem that Deadrat fails to
understand that swearing a written oath binds you to good behavior - a
bond. Oh well.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<4be4b5f1-e87c-45a7...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dead Rat says:
>
>
> "Now shall we look for the statute that requires Larry to have a bond
> or
> to renew it periodically?
>
>
> And by "we," I mean "you.""
>
> I will seal this up with it. Larry is an officer of the court.
"Officer of the court" is a term of art, not a title. Every attorney,
in public or private practice, is considered an "officer of the court."
This does NOT make every lawyer a public officer as used the section
below!
> Public Officers; Article II §10
>
> § 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath of
> office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
> court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
> office of court administration, before he shall be entitled to
> enter upon the discharge of any of his official duties. An
> oath of office may be administered by a judge of the court of appeals,
> the attorney general, or by any officer authorized to
> take, within the state, the acknowledgment of the execution of a
> deed of real property, or by an officer in whose office the
> oath...
>
> Deadrat saying that Larry probably took a written oath and somebody
> whisked it away before Larry could register what he had signed; that
> does nothing to detract from the satisfaction of finding that a DA is
> either lying through his teeth or that the law profession is so dumbed
> down that Larry does not realize the insurance bond depends on Larry
> and his coworkers following the law. Which Larry admits he has not
> done.
What insurance bond? I cannot make it any clearer for you:
THERE IS NO INSURANCE BOND.
Seriously.... I made it as simple as I can. Do you understand it now?
esaup...@gmail.com
key clause in here that you didn't pick up on. "The oath or statement
of every STATE EMPLOYEE shall be filed..." I am not a state employee,
rendering that filing requirement completely inapplicable to me and my
job."
That is pretty slick; telling us you are an ADA (Assistant District
Attorney) and that you have sworn a verbal oath and that you are bound
by that oath - all to reveal that you are not a state employee.
> Actually, note in particular that this provision applies to "every
> officer" and "every judicial officer." I am neither, as these terms are
> used in this section.
"...and every judicial officer of the unified court system..."
If you are an attorney then you are an officer of the court. And if
you are not an attorney, district attorney, assistant district
attorney or a state employee then I apologize for taking up your time.
You have no business prosecuting anybody. I thought I was talking to
someone else Larry.
I thought you said you were an ADA appointed by a DA.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<b660d1bc-4a99-45ab...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that's some creative dancing. You used to refer to a bond in the
context of insurance carriers and policies and companies that pay out if
I sue. Now you're calling my "bond" my promise of good behavior?
Larry
<a2e0b305-0c8f-4192...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Deadrat, as usual you do more research than others... but there's a
> key clause in here that you didn't pick up on. "The oath or statement
> of every STATE EMPLOYEE shall be filed..." I am not a state employee,
> rendering that filing requirement completely inapplicable to me and my
> job."
>
> That is pretty slick; telling us you are an ADA (Assistant District
> Attorney) and that you have sworn a verbal oath and that you are bound
> by that oath - all to reveal that you are not a state employee.
I am not. I am neither employed by nor paid by the state of New York.
> > Actually, note in particular that this provision applies to "every
> > officer" and "every judicial officer." I am neither, as these terms are
> > used in this section.
>
> "...and every judicial officer of the unified court system..."
I am not a judicial officer. As I've explained, I am not even in the
judicial branch. So how could I be a judicial officer?
> If you are an attorney then you are an officer of the court. And if
> you are not an attorney, district attorney, assistant district
> attorney or a state employee then I apologize for taking up your time.
I am an Assistant District Attorney, and therefore an attorney as well.
I am not a District Attorney or a state employee, however.
> You have no business prosecuting anybody. I thought I was talking to
> someone else Larry.
>
> I thought you said you were an ADA appointed by a DA.
I am.
esaup...@gmail.com
> In article
> <a2e0b305-0c8f-4192-b7a2-bea642d77...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
I know the answer to the riddles. You are in New York county and the
borough of Manhattan. Manhattan Island is a Patroonship claim in
perpetuity. Dutch East Indies Trading Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_%28New_York_City%29
You have been leading us around in circles over your special
circumstances. Larry is part of an extraordinary land claim. For
instance where would someone be able to donate American land (18
acres) for international soil, without being governmental establishing
an embassy?
Answer: Manhattan Island.
Who: David Rockefeller
What for: The United Nations Plaza
While I believe a little too much weight is put toward the Protocols
as anything more than a forgery, a fuller picture of what I am talking
about is found in this old American's Bulletin article.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter2.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter3.pdf
Larry has not been openly transparent that he operates in one of the
only three extraterritorial nations of the Crown Triumpherate -
Vatican City [UCC - Unidroit], Sovereign and Independent City of
London [International Bar Association and Inner Temple] and Manhattan
Island [Patroons and United Nations].
Thanks for the lesson Larry. You are a used car salesman in reality. I
have heard convincing obfuscation like yours only from attorneys and
used car salesmen. All the while you knew full well I and most the
readers are trying to apply this to where we are located - but you
never told us about the special situation where you are in "the
boroughs".
In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
not validate it easily. But the very fact that you took one at all
binds you to publishing - making it easy for anybody whom it may
matter to, to get a certified copy. If you have located loopholes it
is because you are in a very specialized legal environment like a
borough on Manhattan Island.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<deb72bf0-52d3-42ea...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no riddle here.
> You are in New York county and the
> borough of Manhattan.
I am not in New York County.
> Manhattan Island is a Patroonship claim in
> perpetuity. Dutch East Indies Trading Company.
No, it isn't. Manhattan Island is an island, the area of which makes up
the borough of Manhattan and the county of New York, within the state of
New York.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough %28New York City%29
>
> You have been leading us around in circles over your special
> circumstances.
I haven't been leading anyone anywhere. I've been very straightforward.
You are having extreme difficulty separating Colorado requirements and
terminology from New York requirements and terminology. You're also
putting requirements and conditions on my employment that to not
actually exist. That is why you're so confused.
> Larry is part of an extraordinary land claim. For
> instance where would someone be able to donate American land (18
> acres) for international soil, without being governmental establishing
> an embassy?
>
> Answer: Manhattan Island.
> Who: David Rockefeller
> What for: The United Nations Plaza
>
> While I believe a little too much weight is put toward the Protocols
> as anything more than a forgery, a fuller picture of what I am talking
> about is found in this old American's Bulletin article.
>
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill METROchapter2.pdf
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill METROchapter3.pdf
>
> Larry has not been openly transparent that he operates in one of the
> only three extraterritorial nations of the Crown Triumpherate -
> Vatican City [UCC - Unidroit], Sovereign and Independent City of
> London [International Bar Association and Inner Temple] and Manhattan
> Island [Patroons and United Nations].
Okay, I admit it, you figured it all out! I operate in one of the three
extraterritorial nations of the Crown Triumpherate (wouldn't that be
Triumvirate?). I am part of the Patroonship of Manhattan.
But now that the secret's out, I might get kicked out of the club.
Thanks alot, man!
> Thanks for the lesson Larry. You are a used car salesman in reality.
A used car salesman in New York or in the patroonship of Manhattan?
> I
> have heard convincing obfuscation like yours only from attorneys and
> used car salesmen. All the while you knew full well I and most the
> readers are trying to apply this to where we are located - but you
> never told us about the special situation where you are in "the
> boroughs".
>
> In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
> not validate it easily. But the very fact that you took one at all
> binds you to publishing - making it easy for anybody whom it may
> matter to, to get a certified copy.
So you say. But that's not what the constitution, statutes, or case law
says. And I follow them, not your whims.
> If you have located loopholes it
> is because you are in a very specialized legal environment like a
> borough on Manhattan Island.
Actually, the legal environment in Manhattan is exactly the same as the
legal environment in the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties, in
every way I know, including all rules of evidence, procedure, practice,
and substantive law.
Especially the Bronx, which is the First Department of the Appellate
Division, along with Manhattan. (The other counties are in the second
department)
esaup...@gmail.com
Since you are an attorney and not a judicial officer, the courts you
attend are non-judicial. Like I have already explained - strictly
administrative. FDR's installment of the American people as chattel
forming government bonds is this throughout the states by the 1933
Governors' Conference.
__________________________________
"Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They
have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade
people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to
deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in
one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress."
The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The
Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address
before the Governors' Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.
__________________________________
This is basically New York bankers operating through FDR to extend
that Patroonship claim out into the states through the Fed. In 1933,
the 20 year charters forming the Fed banks expired causing the
Bankers' Holiday. The American people were accused of hoarding gold
and were made the enemy as I have already linked evidence:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_TWA_Collections.jpg
It has been a very good lesson for me - Larry's riddles. I have
learned quite a bit. Just the same, being fiddled leaves a bad taste
in my mouth. If Larry is not an oath-bound state employee and officer
of the court - he has no business buying a private insurance company
to back him for his mistakes prosecuting people. This deviation in
common law is not a generally known legal structure - I promise you
that. Ergo I would simply abate any prosecution from his office - it
is quite vacant.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
the legal environment in the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond
Counties, in every way I know, including all rules of evidence,
procedure, practice, and substantive law.
Especially the Bronx, which is the First Department of the Appellate
Division, along with Manhattan. (The other counties are in the second
department)
__________________________
There you have it then folks. The boroughs are a special legal
environment - not just Manhattan Island like I thought.
I am glad you have been entertained while I figured that out Larry.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<a89ac9fa-ed6f-4b94...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
You really need the obvious stated for you, don't you?
The legal environment in Manhattan is the same as the legal environment
in the other counties that comprise New York City, which is the same as
the legal environment in EVERY ONE OF THE SIXTY FOUR COUNTIES OF NEW
YORK STATE.
esaup...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you are saying that legal environment requires you swear an oath
but only verbally without any written validation or publication. You
are saying that attorneys in New York are not officers of the court
and that District Attorneys there and their underlings are not state
employees.
I was able to accept these astounding things, even though they
contradict both the NY constitution stipulating other officers having
to "renew security"; which by the way requires establishing a security
in order to renew it. I was wrapping my mind around your assertions in
light of a jurisdiction of boroughs around New York City Larry. The
statutes are quite clear about requirements to both have a written
oath and to publish it where people concerned can get certified copies
from qualified clerks.
So here is what I surmise. You are making up this garbage about not
being, at least in effect of contract, in a state employee type of
relationship with the State of New York. You are making it up that you
do not need a written oath simply because you have not got one and you
need to justify that. You are making it up that attorneys are not
judicial officers - being officers of the court.
I have tried every which way to fit your rationalizations into the NY
constitution and statutes. I even figured for a while that you were
duped into thinking a verbal oath cuts it - that it binds you to the
constitution in a way that matters to the people you prosecute. That
is all over.
I figured I would come back and find you actually pondering the
reality of fidelity bonds and making them available to the people -
especially those you prosecute in the "judicial" environment there.
But instead you seem to have broken off into a state of denial about
even being a state employee. It is difficult to reconcile your
dissociation from reality to the reality I found this morning in the
NY laws regarding requirements of publishing oaths of office. The DA
and you, an ADA are right in the middle of the whole machine and you
effect people's lives profoundly with your prosecutions - and you
expect us to believe that you are not effected by the requirement to
have oaths in writing and available from reliable clerks?
I think you are a product of social conditioning that in a sense, has
snapped. I believe that when the rubber meets the road, properly
explained there is not a "judge" around who would allow you to
prosecute somebody like me in their courtroom. They know that you are
personally liable and have no coverture for your actions from
government - mainly because you have not filed a written oath of
office as required by statute. The good thing is that you have an
insurance company that will help you keep your home, car and bank
accounts through judgments and liens that result against you
personally - according to your boss at your privitized DA office.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
readers here.
This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
officer and state employee? [well, two questions] Could I count on him
or her, the attorney in the black robe to have a written oath properly
filed according to the NY constitution and the statute I cited?
Regards,
David Merrill.
Dane Metcalfe
> In article <IKTbj.32525$JD.14...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm afraid I have to call you on that. You are an Officer of the
Court, and the Court is a private business incorporation making
millions of dollars, I wouls suppose, in NYC. Jean Keating claims NYC
is funded to the tune of billions by the bonding of prisoners, but, I
must confess, that's a little over my head.
But, I'd be willing to share, if you'de like...
Of course you have immunity. How would it be otherwise.
By tacit procuration you have stipulated that the federal and state
govs are private enterprise businesses, though I don't know if you are
aware that they are registered as same.
(Police Allowed to Perjure with Impunity Thread)
No rebuttal.
Dane Metcalfe
<snip>
>
> Actually, note in particular that this provision applies to "every
> officer" and "every judicial officer." I am neither, as these terms are
> used in this section.
I think research will bring case law that shows you to be are a "quasi-
judicial" officer.
<snip>
Dane Metcalfe
>
> - Show quoted text -
From my understanding, the fidelity bond is held by your private
incorporated employer, whichever individual enterprise that may be
Dane Metcalfe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Should we include the 50 States and the Territorys as well?
Dane Metcalfe
>
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > So let's say, for argument's sake, that the office is vacant.
>
> > > Vacant means empty.
>
> > > I do not think I need to make any legal or other determination about
> > > what that means. An empty office means it is void. No valid
> > > prosecution could commence from a vacant AG office. No valid judgment
> > > or opinion could ever issue from a vacant courtroom.
>
> > This is not true.
>
> > Again, I ask you: suppose the president is assassinated, or cannot
> > fulfill his other duties for some reason. Now suppose it is a few hours
> > before the Vice President is sworn into office. There is no President
> > for those few hours; the office is vacant. Agreed?
>
> > But this does NOT mean that all federal government employees have no
> > authority whatsoever to do their job during those few hours. Their jobs
> > go on; their duties and responsibilities and authority continue. This
> > is because they work for the institution of office of the president, not
> > any particular person.
>
> > > The beauty of it is that no court was needed - John Suthers, in both
> > > cases, vacant DA in 1996 and currently vacant AG provided the
> > > testimony against himself. It is right there. He swears to uphold the
> > > state constitution and then fails to abide by it, expressly leaving
> > > his office vacant. Whatever that means...
>
> > It does NOT mean that all prosecutions during that time are void. If
> > you think so, you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misapplying)
> > agency law.
>
> I don't understand this agency law. I understand that de facto
> nurturing de facto as described above is "legal." I would probably
> never attempt to argue that in a court of law, because I'm fairly
> certain that I would be instructed that I consented to being
> victimised somehow in these non-constitutional settings.
>
> But David's proposition about abating the process as a nuisence... I
> never considered any approach like that!
>
> So much for volunteering for some non-judicial terrorism. Then it
> wouldn't be "legal" would it?
>
>
>
> > > You were dancing around that simple issue for so long Larry, that I
> > > just felt it best to break it down a bit for anybody who is reading
> > > and trying to get anything out of this discussion or debate - whatever
> > > you want to call it.
>
> > See how easy that was? You broke it down and presented it logically,
> > and now I agree with you, if what you say is true, about the office
> > being vacant. We disagree on what consequence that has for the
> > employees of the office and prosecutions they bring.
>
> > > Where I was going from your admission that John Suthers is running a
> > > vacant office is something I thought you especially could relate to.
> > > You put causes, prosecutions into the courthouse. You file complaints
> > > that start criminal proceedings. The "judges" you put these causes
> > > before also swear oaths of office. And there are constitutional
> > > stipulations about publishing those oaths.
>
> > Stop saying that! There is no constitutional stipulation about
> > "publishing" an oath. Perhaps some states have such a requirement, but
> > not all do.
>
> > > When a "judge" is notified that the prosecution is brought from a
> > > vacant office, the only way to proceed is not to have a properlyonly nurture de facto. If the
> > > "judge" is running a valid office, he cannot entertain the cause from
> > > installed office himself. De facto can
> > > a vacant office. That would be in violation of his oath.
>
> > Why? See what I said above. Even if there is no particular person
> > serving as Attorney General at a given time, there is still the office
> > of the Attorney General, and the members of the office have the same
> > powers and responsibilities as they did before.
>
> > > And of course
> > > if the "judge" does not have his oath properly published his office of
> > > "judge" is vacant and so the "defendant" abates the vacant proceedings
> > > as a public nuisance - basically as a civic duty. There is no
> > > authority in a vacant court - all that can issue are null judgments.
> > > Like I said, Vacant means Empty.
>
> > > You can pretend to understand that differently Larry. I know it is
> > > your job to. But I would gather some people reading this thread
> > > understand what I am trying to say.
>
> > I'd venture to say otherwise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's an interesting tidbit, for those with eyes to see:
BLACKBURN v. OKLAHOMA CITY
1893 OK 1
31 P. 782
1 Okla. 292
Decided: 01/06/1893
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
BLACKBURN
v.
OKLAHOMA CITY
Appeal from the Probate Court of Oklahoma County
Syllabus
�0 1. PROVISIONAL CITY--Contracts of.--The original provisional
municipal government of Oklahoma City was not a de facto municipal
corporation, and had no power to contract or bind itself or successors
by any agreements.
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION--Legislative Authority.--Prior to the act of
congress of May 2, 1890, there was no law in the Territory of Oklahoma
authorizing municipal corporations, and where there is no law
authorizing de jure municipal corporations a de facto corporation
cannot exist. Such de jure corporations can only exist under
legislative enactments.
3. ACT OF MAY 2, 1890--De Facto Corporation.--The act of congress of
May 2, 1890, made provision for the organization of de jure municipal
corporations, and the provisional government of Oklahoma City became
and was a de facto corporation from and after that date.
4. DE JURE CORPORATION--Liability of.--A de jure successor of a de
facto municipal corporation, which acquires the property, rights and
improvements, and embraces the same territory, and is composed of the
same people as its de facto predecessor, is liable for the valid
contracts and legal liabilities of the de facto corporation.
Dane Metcalfe
> dj...@cornell.edu wrote innews:86d9d029-869f-4b5c...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:> >> innews:1e318de2-0252-46c0-bebf-3d18b3c26c66@n20
> > g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > Yes. They would be without authority except for emergency
> >> >> > procedures to immediately kick into place preventing that.
>
> >> >> Where do you get this from? What statute or constitutional
> >> >> provision?
>
> >> > That is basically the 25th Amendment but it has always been held
> >> > that the Vice President will immediately fill in for the President
> >> > should he be incapacitated.
>
> >> >> That person could not issue directions or execute his office,
> >> >> since he does not properly hold the position. But the office
> >> >> exists, and it has constitutional and statutory powers and
> >> >> responsibilities, regardless of whether someone is currently
> >> >> holding the title or not.
>
> >> > That makes no sense. The person in the office begins executing
> >> > duties responsibly but has to get the oath published in the time
> >> > allowed by law.
>
> >> >> The position of "Attorney General" may be vacant, but that does
> >> >> NOT mean the office of the Attorney General is null and void.
> >> >> > I know. We have agreed that technically John Suthers admits to
> >> >> > running a constitutionally stipulated "vacant" office.
>
> >> >> I have not agreed to it. I have agreed to continue this
> >> >> discussion as if that contention was true, although I do not know
> >> >> if it is or not.
>
> >> >> New York does not [stipulate fidelity bonding by oath and
> >> >> publication - "s
> >> > ecurity"]. It's that simple. You admit you haven't looked it up,
> >> > s
> > o
> >> > why do you claim it is so?
>
> >> > No. I am telling you I have looked it up. And it is more specific
> >> > in the Revised Statutes than the current constitution.
>
> >> >> No, it isn't. Whether you like it or not.
>
> >> >> > Why bother stipulating an office
> >> >> > is "vacant" if it still holds anything; any authority or powers?
> >> >> > Like I keep saying, Vacant means Empty. Empty means bereft - no
> >> >> > authority - no powers.
>
> >> >> Right. If Suthers was not properly sworn in as Attorney General,
> >> >> he has
>
> >> >> no authority or power. It does not mean the office ceases to
> >> >> exist or function.
>
> >> > Cool! Then you admit it again. John Suthers had 30 days to file his
> >> > oath with the secretary of state. Since nobody else with a properly
> >> > filed oath is pretending to be attorney general - the office is
> >> > vacant. I keep saying that and you keep agreeing.
>
> >> >> I haven't admitted that, you fool.
>
> >> > Yes you have. And I find that you have become insulting about it
> >> > the Tell that you know it.
>
> >> >> > Now you are trying to say that there are no publication
> >> >> > requirements?
>
> >> >> I never said that.
>
> >> > Yes you did.
>
> >> >> > That is what that section of the Colorado constitution is about.
> >> >> > Officers have to publish their oaths at either the county clerk
> >> >> > and recorder or the secretary of state's office within thirty
> >> >> > days of appointment or election. Otherwise the office is vacant
> >> >> > like John Suthers' office of Attorney General.
>
> >> >> > I get a feeling you have failed to publish your oath of office
> >> >> > and are running a vacant office too?
>
> >> >> I admit; I have no published my oath of office. Because there is
> >> >> no requirement for me to do so!
>
> >> >> > York constitution under the requirements of Officers like I did
> >> >> > here. If it has been more than 30 days, your office is vacant.
>
> >> >> I'm done with you, you're a one-trick pony and you've grown bored
> >> >> and tiresome.
>
> >> >http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/cons2004.htm
>
> >> > I am sure you are. While you were writing I looked it up. In the NY
> >> > constitution publication of oath is renewal of an officer's
> >> > security. That is the NY term for fidelity bond. And that is quite
> >> > simply binding the officer to the constitution.
>
> >> > For instance, how many times have you furnished your oath of office
> >> > to a defendant Larry? Never.
>
> >> <quote src="New York State Constitution" Article="XIII" Section="13a
> > ">
> >> Sheriffs shall hold no other office. They may be required by law to
> >> renew their security, from time to time; and in default of giving
> >> such new security, their offices shall be deemed vacant.
> >> </quote>
>
> >> Larry is not a sheriff.
>
> >> > So if you have not published it,
>
> >> Nowhere does it say that the oath has to be published.
>
> >> > where does a defendant get a certified copy?
>
> >> Nowhere is a defendant guaranteed a certified copy.
>
> >> > How can I get it from the secretary
> >> > of state or county clerk and recorder if you have never published
> >> > it - your security?
>
> >> Again, Larry is not required to renew his security. If he is not
> >> exempted as an "inferior officer," then he is required to take the
> >> oath specified.
>
> >> > Do you think it makes any sense that I should be dependent upon you
> >> > to provide your oath of office to me at your own discretion?
>
> >> Sense doesn't matter. What the law states matters.
>
> >> > "They may be required by law to renew their security, from time to
> >> > time; and in default of giving such new security, their offices
> >> > shall be deemed vacant."
>
> >> > I will leave it up to you to describe the details of "renewing
> >> > their security" - publication of oath.
>
> >> Again. In NY, this applies only to sheriffs.
>
> >> As a defendant, I'd guess you have no standing to inquire as to
> >> whether an ADA had properly taken the oath of office. If you did,
> >> then the judg
> > e
> >> could swear in the ADA and ask if he'd taken the oath.
>
> >> If an ADA was found to have been improperly invested in his office,
> >> why do you think that gets a defendant off the hook? Would that
> >> invalidate his arrest or the returning of a true bill by a grand
> >> jury?
>
> >> > Regards,
>
> >> > David Merrill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > If that were true, I would still be considered 3/5 of a man
>
> You have misunderstood antebellum law. Had you been a slave in the
> American south, you would have been considered no man at all under the
> law. In the words of Dred Scott v Sanford, you would have had "no rights
> that the white man was bound to respect. Nevertheless, you would have
> counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census, thus increasing
> the power of your masters in the House of Representatives and the
> Electoral College.
>
> In other words, thanks for making my point for me.
>
> I don't dispute that sense may catch the law and change it, but in a head
> to head confrontation, the law trumps.
Natural enough, as the criminals manipulating the laws have a big army
with guns.
Ask Scott Dresdon.
>
> > and Nelson Mandela would still be locked up!
>
> I'll restrict my comments to the US of A, leaving aside the U of SA.- Hide quoted text -
Deadrat
news:x-3A88EF.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
Unless you are an employee of one of the state's "civil divisions," which
I took to mean a political area like a borough, county, or city. But
you'd know better than I whether you're covered under civil service.
In any case, I still think you're covered. Let's try this:
<quote src="Public Officers Law" Article="2" Section="10">
Every officer shall take and file the oath of office required by law, and
every judicial officer of the unified court system, in addition, shall
file a copy of said oath in the office of court administration, before he
shall be entitled to enter upon the discharge of any of his official
duties....The oath of office of every state officer shall be filed in the
office of the secretary of state; of every officer of a municipal
corporation, including a school district, with the clerk thereof; and of
every other officer....in the office of the clerk of the county in which
he shall reside, if no place be otherwise provided by law for the filing
thereof.
</quote>
Public officers are either state officers (with state-wide authority) or
local officers (without state-wide authority).
That said, this bond thing is from left field. It looks like court-
appointed receivers and trustees are considered public officers, and
since they handle with money and property, they require a bond. But, as
you point out, you've got immunity, so a bond is unnecessary.
The other thing I can't figure out is what effect esauphacus thinks
obtains from a defect in an ADA's oath. It seems to me that the oath
greases the dismissal skids for any malfeasant. I don't see how it could
benefit a defendant. That isn't to say it's impossible. California used
to have (and may still have) traffic commissioners who heard traffic
cases. They were almost judges, but not quite. Anyone who was found
guilty by a traffic commissioner could demand to sentenced by a real
judge. So for purposes of passing sentence, a traffic commissioner was
"defective." Maybe there's some rule granting defendants the right to be
prosecuted by non-"defective," duly-sworn ADAs.
I doubt it.
Deadrat
news:deb72bf0-52d3-42ea...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Manhattan Island is a geographical and not a political division. The
borough of Manhattan and the county of New York comprise slightly more
than the island of Manhattan.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_%28New_York_City%29
>
> You have been leading us around in circles over your special
> circumstances. Larry is part of an extraordinary land claim. For
> instance where would someone be able to donate American land (18
> acres) for international soil, without being governmental establishing
> an embassy?
>
> Answer: Manhattan Island.
> Who: David Rockefeller
> What for: The United Nations Plaza
>
> While I believe a little too much weight is put toward the Protocols
> as anything more than a forgery, a fuller picture of what I am talking
> about is found in this old American's Bulletin article.
>
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter2.pdf
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter3.pdf
You're basing your fuller picture on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Excellent, your loonship.
> Larry has not been openly transparent that he operates in one of the
> only three extraterritorial nations of the Crown Triumpherate -
> Vatican City [UCC - Unidroit], Sovereign and Independent City of
> London [International Bar Association and Inner Temple] and Manhattan
> Island [Patroons and United Nations].
>
> Thanks for the lesson Larry. You are a used car salesman in reality. I
> have heard convincing obfuscation like yours only from attorneys and
> used car salesmen. All the while you knew full well I and most the
> readers are trying to apply this to where we are located - but you
> never told us about the special situation where you are in "the
> boroughs".
Did you forget your tinfoil hat?
> In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
> not validate it easily.
It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
> But the very fact that you took one at all
> binds you to publishing - making it easy for anybody whom it may
> matter to, to get a certified copy.
No, statute may require the filing, but that's about it.
> If you have located loopholes it
> is because you are in a very specialized legal environment like a
> borough on Manhattan Island.
Larry's position belongs to New York County.
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
Deadrat
news:x-0BAA23.23...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
Not quite. There's a little bit on the mainland.
Well, when you figure it out, can you get me a deal on 2008 Patroon? I'd
like power steering, ABS brakes, and A/C. The color doesn't matter, but
if you've got a blue one, ....
<snip>
Deadrat
@s48g2000hss.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> It has been a very good lesson for me - Larry's riddles. I have
> learned quite a bit. Just the same, being fiddled leaves a bad taste
> in my mouth.
That bad taste is your foot.
> If Larry is not an oath-bound state employee and officer
> of the court - he has no business buying a private insurance company
> to back him for his mistakes prosecuting people. This deviation in
> common law is not a generally known legal structure - I promise you
> that. Ergo I would simply abate any prosecution from his office - it
> is quite vacant.
Not as vacant as your arguments.
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
Dane Metcalfe
Fact is, argued properly (in a highly theoretical "judicial" court, I
know, unlikely at best, but, for the sake of argument) presented
properly, an inhabitants case against such official as is presented
here, there can be no immunity:
QUOTE:
As far as I know, the Clearfield Doctrine states through a series of
so-called "supreme court" "opinions" that what people for some unknown
to me reason insist on calling the "federal" government has the same
standing and status as anyone else when it contracts to do business.
A process fails at its first defect.
When dragged by municipal mercenary troops into one of the foreign
occupation junta's military inquests, the first thing, as far as I
know, that needs to be established, is the true identity of real party
at interest, flesh and blood.
Next would likely be an identifiable, and identified flesh and blood
injured party and
"The injury alleged must be, for example, " ' distinct and palpable,'
" Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979)
(quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501),
and not "abstract" or "conjectural" or "hypothetical," Los Angeles v.
Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488,
494 (1974).
The injury must be "fairly" traceable to the challenged action, and
relief from the injury must be "likely" to follow from a favorable
decision."
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
"The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged
action of the defendant.
The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669,
688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint
must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the
defendant's acts or omissions. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights
Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed2d 450
(1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38
L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93
S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed2d 536 (1973)."
Vil. of Arlingron Hts. V. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.
And requires a corpus delecti.
Next would be standing of the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's
representation.
Next would be the the authenticity of judge to deny you your court,
and stand in your stead, original jurisdiction, one might say.
UNQUOTE
If the above be true, then the same would necessarily hold true for a
state.
Unless of course anyone would care to argue that any of the 50 States
are not so embedded within the clutches of the federal zone that they
might by some type of legal wrangling that they may extricate
themselves, as if they would ever want to.
These incorporated private business "governments" are making far too
much money to ever ***want*** of the racketeering enterprize.
Deadrat
news:9e4a6217-dc66-4efc...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
"Officer of the court" includes attorneys appearing before the court. A
judicial officer is someone holding a judicial office (like a judgehsip)
as specified in an organizing document (like a constitution)
> I was able to accept these astounding things, even though they
> contradict both the NY constitution stipulating other officers having
> to "renew security";
That's only sheriffs. And they don't have to; they "may" be required
to.
> which by the way requires establishing a security
> in order to renew it. I was wrapping my mind around your assertions in
> light of a jurisdiction of boroughs around New York City Larry. The
> statutes are quite clear about requirements to both have a written
> oath and to publish it where people concerned can get certified copies
> from qualified clerks.
>
> So here is what I surmise. You are making up this garbage about not
> being, at least in effect of contract, in a state employee type of
> relationship with the State of New York.
He doesn't. He has an employee type of relationship with the County of
New York, or at least with a county of New York.
> You are making it up that you
> do not need a written oath simply because you have not got one and you
> need to justify that.
> You are making it up that attorneys are not
> judicial officers - being officers of the court.
See above. You don't know what you're talking about.
> I have tried every which way to fit your rationalizations into the NY
> constitution and statutes. I even figured for a while that you were
> duped into thinking a verbal oath cuts it - that it binds you to the
> constitution in a way that matters to the people you prosecute. That
> is all over.
>
> I figured I would come back and find you actually pondering the
> reality of fidelity bonds and making them available to the people -
> especially those you prosecute in the "judicial" environment there.
> But instead you seem to have broken off into a state of denial about
> even being a state employee.
He's not. He's a *county* employee. What's so hard about this?
> It is difficult to reconcile your
> dissociation from reality to the reality I found this morning in the
> NY laws regarding requirements of publishing oaths of office.
You didn't find anything. I did your work for you.
> The DA
> and you, an ADA are right in the middle of the whole machine and you
> effect people's lives profoundly with your prosecutions - and you
> expect us to believe that you are not effected by the requirement to
> have oaths in writing and available from reliable clerks?
>
> I think you are a product of social conditioning that in a sense, has
> snapped. I believe that when the rubber meets the road, properly
> explained there is not a "judge" around who would allow you to
> prosecute somebody like me in their courtroom.
I'd pay money to see that theory tested.
> They know that you are personally liable
He's got immunity.
> and have no coverture for your actions from
You'd better look up the word coverture.
> government - mainly because you have not filed a written oath of
> office as required by statute.
Then he's been a bad boy. What effect do you think that would have?
> The good thing is that you have an
> insurance company that will help you keep your home, car and bank
> accounts through judgments and liens that result against you
> personally - according to your boss at your privitized DA office.
An attempt at humor?
> Regards,
>
> David Merrill.
>
esaup...@gmail.com
This is directed toward Larry for an answer. Deadrat keeps wandering
in and out of the premise.
______________________
> In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
> not validate it easily.
It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
______________________
Larry never signed a written oath like required by NY statute.
All Deadrat is doing is badgering and throwing insults. Since this is
about requirement to file a written oath, and he is generating
nonsense posts, Deadrat's posts and any posts in response to his posts
are not worth the time to read.
Dane Metcalfe does however present some of the the things in light of
municipal corporate structure. Home Rule is not the Protocols and I
forewarned the readers about the METRO 1313 article I linked. The
Protocols are a forgery, admitted by the Jews as well. This term
"forgery" means there was a previous genuine document that was altered
to frame the Jews in place of the villain.
I tried many gyrations to fit Larry's assertions into a framework and
the only compatible scenario is a municipal structure - METRO
organization - global municipal structure under Home Rule. This simply
means that New York and UN combinatorial government gets to do what it
wants. Larry gets to dawn mantles of identity that suit him and fit
him as the situation prescribes in public policy over law.
We have seen it here. He spent plenty of our reading time letting us
presume that like John Suthers in Colorado as vacant DA and currently
vacant AG John pretends to be a state employee. That is to say, these
offices when the officer properly files an oath of office in the
proper place timely, is without question a state employee.
Therefore I would implore the reader to skip over Deadrat's
intentional distractions and simply remember that Larry stated that
when he was hired he swore out an oath. That oath was nothing more
than words in the air, witnessed by attorneys in a private context.
However, the mere fact was assimilating a mantle of being a state
employee. Larry has stated his immunity is an insurance company. It is
not his oath. His oath would have to be written, and filed within 30
days by law at a qualified clerk and recorder - the registery for real
estate titles will do; whatever you want to call that there in NY.
That is obviously the requirement for him to have any Governmental
Immunity. That is what the oath of office and its stipulated
recordation is about - acquiring a fidelity bond so that the taxpayer
will foot the responsibility and pay up for any blunders Larry makes
that cause injury.
Instead Larry has an insurance company for immunity. This is private
law and can easily be abated because one has to volunteer into that
jurisdiction. It is not territorial; it is extraterritorial. In
territorial law, the original 13th Amendment applies as found in
Colorado in 1861:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_970.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_971.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_972.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_973.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_974.jpg
That is still the territorial law - the Bill of Rights for the
Territory of Colorado even today. Pay particular attention to the
Amendment XIII.
What I direct the reader to ponder is that there is no sense for Larry
to have sworn any oath at all except that he is trying to at least
mimic the state employees stipulated in the statute I keep quoting.
Larry is a full officer of the court system - he is an attorney. Since
he is bonded by a private insurance company that seems to require he
mimic state employees in form, I am okay with Dane's assessment that
he is a "quasi-judicial officer". And a proper publication of oath
follows that mime. The purpose of publication is that I can verify his
oath without having like Deadrat says go to Larry directly, wait for
him to make an appointment, call me back spending my valuable time and
efforts while trying to defend myself too.
Simple. Easy to understand. I have even tried that approach - Larry,
if not required by law, why is it that you do not publish your oath
out of common courtesy and common sense? If you are busy prosecuting
me, what makes you think that you can find loopholes that make me
depend on you to get a certified copy of your oath of office? Are you
ashamed of your oath of office? Is there a reason I cannot go find it
at a convenient clerk office?
Things like that. So I am putting it very simply in a question that
will answer a lot more questions for me. I want to find out if the
attorney in the black robe, will slip in and out of state employee
status too - like Larry did for us here. I am sure that behind this
black robed figure there is a circular Great Seal representing New
York state.
_____________________________
Larry
<9e4a6217-dc66-4efc...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:56 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a89ac9fa-ed6f-4b94-9704-55ceedba5...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Actually, the legal environment in Manhattan is exactly the same as
> > > the legal environment in the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond
> > > Counties, in every way I know, including all rules of evidence,
> > > procedure, practice, and substantive law.
> >
> > > Especially the Bronx, which is the First Department of the Appellate
> > > Division, along with Manhattan. (The other counties are in the second
> > > department)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > There you have it then folks. The boroughs are a special legal
> > > environment - not just Manhattan Island like I thought.
> >
> > > I am glad you have been entertained while I figured that out Larry.
> >
> > You really need the obvious stated for you, don't you?
> >
> > The legal environment in Manhattan is the same as the legal environment
> > in the other counties that comprise New York City, which is the same as
> > the legal environment in EVERY ONE OF THE SIXTY FOUR COUNTIES OF NEW
> > YORK STATE.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And you are saying that legal environment requires you swear an oath
> but only verbally without any written validation or publication.
That's EXACTLY what I am saying. Now you're catching on!
> You
> are saying that attorneys in New York are not officers of the court
> and that District Attorneys there and their underlings are not state
> employees.
Attorneys are officers of the court, but this is not the same as being a
judicial officer. I'd think you were smart enough not to get confused
just because the same word is used in different contexts.
District Attorneys and their underlings are not state employees, however.
> I was able to accept these astounding things, even though they
> contradict both the NY constitution stipulating other officers having
> to "renew security"; which by the way requires establishing a security
> in order to renew it.
There is no such constitutional stipulation, as I and others have told
you.
> I was wrapping my mind around your assertions in
> light of a jurisdiction of boroughs around New York City Larry. The
> statutes are quite clear about requirements to both have a written
> oath and to publish it where people concerned can get certified copies
> from qualified clerks.
What statutes? Cite them here, please:
Larry
<60ecafcd-1b4b-4837...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let me ask you one more question though. Please indulge me and any
> readers here.
>
> This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
> prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
> officer and state employee? [well, two questions]
Yes to both of them.
> Could I count on him
> or her, the attorney in the black robe to have a written oath properly
> filed according to the NY constitution and the statute I cited?
I don't recall you ever citing a statute. Nonetheless, I am not sure
the answer to your question. Not being a judge, I've never thought much
of it.
Larry
<343200cc-0b0a-42d6...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Even if that is true, a "quasi-judicial officer" is not the same as a
"judicial officer," is it?
Larry
<91970ba0-aab3-44b6...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:56 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a89ac9fa-ed6f-4b94-9704-55ceedba5...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Actually, the legal environment in Manhattan is exactly the same as
> > > the legal environment in the Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond
> > > Counties, in every way I know, including all rules of evidence,
> > > procedure, practice, and substantive law.
> >
> > > Especially the Bronx, which is the First Department of the Appellate
> > > Division, along with Manhattan. (The other counties are in the second
> > > department)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > There you have it then folks. The boroughs are a special legal
> > > environment - not just Manhattan Island like I thought.
> >
> > > I am glad you have been entertained while I figured that out Larry.
> >
> > You really need the obvious stated for you, don't you?
> >
> > The legal environment in Manhattan is the same as the legal environment
> > in the other counties that comprise New York City, which is the same as
> > the legal environment in EVERY ONE OF THE SIXTY FOUR COUNTIES OF NEW
> > YORK STATE.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Should we include the 50 States and the Territorys as well?
No we shouldn't, because each state is its own sovereignty for purposes
of creating their own judicial systems and rules therefore. What's
allowed in one states' courts may not be allowed in another, and vice
versa.
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> That said, this bond thing is from left field. It looks like court-
> appointed receivers and trustees are considered public officers, and
> since they handle with money and property, they require a bond. But, as
> you point out, you've got immunity, so a bond is unnecessary.
Which he completely fails to address. Other than denying I have
immunity.
> The other thing I can't figure out is what effect esauphacus thinks
> obtains from a defect in an ADA's oath. It seems to me that the oath
> greases the dismissal skids for any malfeasant. I don't see how it could
> benefit a defendant. That isn't to say it's impossible. California used
> to have (and may still have) traffic commissioners who heard traffic
> cases. They were almost judges, but not quite. Anyone who was found
> guilty by a traffic commissioner could demand to sentenced by a real
> judge. So for purposes of passing sentence, a traffic commissioner was
> "defective." Maybe there's some rule granting defendants the right to be
> prosecuted by non-"defective," duly-sworn ADAs.
>
> I doubt it.
You're right. A few days ago I posted about someone who managed to
become an ADA and prosecute cases without ever being admitted to the
bar. When this was uncovered, defendants who had been convicted in
cases he prosecuted appealed across the board - and they were all
denied. They were not entitled to any relief, and the convictions stood.
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
In NY, its known as FOIL (Freedom of Information Law, not Act). My
office actually has an entire unit designated to handle FOIL requests.
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
I'll give you a real good deal on one.... This one over here. Real low
mileage. Just ignore that dent on the side, it's just a scratch really.
I'll throw in new floor mats, no charge!
Larry
wrote:
> > So here is what I surmise. You are making up this garbage about not
> > being, at least in effect of contract, in a state employee type of
> > relationship with the State of New York.
>
> He doesn't. He has an employee type of relationship with the County of
> New York, or at least with a county of New York.
You've got it!
Counties and cities in New York are legally cognizable and distinct
subdivisions of the state. I am an employee of the county for whom I
work, not the state. Though I'm not sure why everyone assumes it is New
York county. It's kind of funny, actually. Perhaps its because of Law
and Order?
Larry
<c3b8dcfe-4ead-4f35...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 24, 10:44 pm, esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Let me ask you one more question though. Please indulge me and any
> > readers here.
> >
> > This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
> > prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
> > officer and state employee? [well, two questions] Could I count on him
> > or her, the attorney in the black robe to have a written oath properly
> > filed according to the NY constitution and the statute I cited?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David Merrill.
>
> This is directed toward Larry for an answer. Deadrat keeps wandering
> in and out of the premise.
>
>
> > In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
> > not validate it easily.
>
>
> It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
>
>
> Larry never signed a written oath like required by NY statute.
I thought you had claimed it was the constitution that required this.
Now you're claiming it is a statute?
> All Deadrat is doing is badgering and throwing insults. Since this is
> about requirement to file a written oath, and he is generating
> nonsense posts, Deadrat's posts and any posts in response to his posts
> are not worth the time to read.
Since there is no such requirement to file a written oath, your posts
are not really worth the time to read, other than for their humor.
> Dane Metcalfe does however present some of the the things in light of
> municipal corporate structure. Home Rule is not the Protocols and I
> forewarned the readers about the METRO 1313 article I linked. The
> Protocols are a forgery, admitted by the Jews as well. This term
> "forgery" means there was a previous genuine document that was altered
> to frame the Jews in place of the villain.
>
> I tried many gyrations to fit Larry's assertions into a framework and
> the only compatible scenario is a municipal structure - METRO
> organization - global municipal structure under Home Rule. This simply
> means that New York and UN combinatorial government gets to do what it
> wants. Larry gets to dawn mantles of identity that suit him and fit
> him as the situation prescribes in public policy over law.
If only that were true..... I'd dawn the mantle of "King of the
Patroonship of Manhattan Island"!
esaup...@gmail.com
> Dane Metcalfe <quackde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 9:52 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ffcd868c-38c2-40de-b863-ab4944fc4...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Actually, note in particular that this provision applies to "every
> > > officer" and "every judicial officer." I am neither, as these terms are
> > > used in this section.
>
> > I think research will bring case law that shows you to be are a "quasi-
> > judicial" officer.
>
> Even if that is true, a "quasi-judicial officer" is not the same as a
> "judicial officer," is it?
I think this is the post to utilize. Larry is an officer and "every
officer" applies to him. He is trying to say that the statute
repeatedly cited and quoted only applies to "judicial officers".
Officers are bonded by and large their oaths and it is refreshing to
know that any cause brought by Larry as "every officer" would be
honored by the black-robed attorney because he cannot escape being in
that same "every officer" catagory just because the statute says
especially "judicial officers".
________________________
> This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
> prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
> officer and state employee? [well, two questions]
Yes to both of them.
________________________
Thank you Larry. You too are statute bound as an officer in the State
of New York to publish your oath of office or it is intentionally
being run vacant. I say "intentionally" because of your verbal oath,
which really means that as an ADA you really should know the
constitution and its coherent statutes.
The "judge" in any cause you bring, being much less slippery about
escaping the "judicial officer" stipulation and "state employee"
stipulation will consider you are bringing a dead cause into his
courtroom when properly notified that you have never validated your
ADA office. He would have no governmental immunity for a FTA arrest
warrant either way. If he has no published oath; I would sue him
personally for issuing the warrant from the vacant office of "judge".
If his oath is properly published, I use it to show he was
entertaining Larry's vacant cause.
Regards,
David Merrill.
esaup...@gmail.com
> In article <uK2cj.32578$JD.6...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
However Larry has admitted that he has no written oath of office to
request?
Larry
<0fcf070c-806a-4aa3...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The "judge" in any cause you bring, being much less slippery about
> escaping the "judicial officer" stipulation and "state employee"
> stipulation will consider you are bringing a dead cause into his
> courtroom when properly notified that you have never validated your
> ADA office. He would have no governmental immunity for a FTA arrest
> warrant either way. If he has no published oath; I would sue him
> personally for issuing the warrant from the vacant office of "judge".
> If his oath is properly published, I use it to show he was
> entertaining Larry's vacant cause.
I doubt you will actually do any of these things.
Larry
<e7485fcc-1fac-42f8...@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough %28New York City%29
> >
> > > > You have been leading us around in circles over your special
> > > > circumstances. Larry is part of an extraordinary land claim. For
> > > > instance where would someone be able to donate American land (18
> > > > acres) for international soil, without being governmental establishing
> > > > an embassy?
> >
> > > > Answer: Manhattan Island.
> > > > Who: David Rockefeller
> > > > What for: The United Nations Plaza
> >
> > > > While I believe a little too much weight is put toward the Protocols
> > > > as anything more than a forgery, a fuller picture of what I am talking
> > > > about is found in this old American's Bulletin article.
> >
> > > >http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill METROchapter1.pdf
> > > >http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill METROchapter2.pdf
> > > >http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill METROchapter3.pdf
> >
> > > You're basing your fuller picture on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
> > > Excellent, your loonship.
> >
> > > > Larry has not been openly transparent that he operates in one of the
> > > > only three extraterritorial nations of the Crown Triumpherate -
> > > > Vatican City [UCC - Unidroit], Sovereign and Independent City of
> > > > London [International Bar Association and Inner Temple] and Manhattan
> > > > Island [Patroons and United Nations].
> >
> > > > Thanks for the lesson Larry. You are a used car salesman in reality. I
> > > > have heard convincing obfuscation like yours only from attorneys and
> > > > used car salesmen. All the while you knew full well I and most the
> > > > readers are trying to apply this to where we are located - but you
> > > > never told us about the special situation where you are in "the
> > > > boroughs".
> >
> > > Did you forget your tinfoil hat?
> >
> > > > In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
> > > > not validate it easily.
> >
> > > It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
> >
> > In NY, its known as FOIL (Freedom of Information Law, not Act). My
> > office actually has an entire unit designated to handle FOIL requests.-
> > Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> However Larry has admitted that he has no written oath of office to
> request?
Submit a FOIL request and see what you get!
esaup...@gmail.com
I have shown your immunity would reside in publishing an oath of
office timely. The statute applies to all officers and you admit you
are an officer.
"§ 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath
of office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
office of court administration, before he shall be entitled..."
I doubt I will actually do any of these things too. The cause is
killed at trial before even getting to the DA on these same grounds
about oaths. Do you think that the police officer has filed a written
oath? That office is also vacant. So the DA would be a fool to
entertain prosecuting a cause from a vacant office. Even if the DA is
running a vacant office.
So I will not be looking for what is not there - even if your name
really is Lawrence Glasser or whatever. I believe you are running a
vacant office and there is no sense checking if you are telling the
truth about a verbal oath of office - unless for some reason you end
up prosecuting me.
That is highly unlikely that any attorney will be prosecuting me. The
territorial law here provides that attorneys cannot be officers - they
cannot be citizens of the US.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Larry
<98fb8005-1a63-4432...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
esaup...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 25, 10:21 am, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0fcf070c-806a-4aa3-8b0c-5319ecf70...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The "judge" in any cause you bring, being much less slippery about
> > > escaping the "judicial officer" stipulation and "state employee"
> > > stipulation will consider you are bringing a dead cause into his
> > > courtroom when properly notified that you have never validated your
> > > ADA office. He would have no governmental immunity for a FTA arrest
> > > warrant either way. If he has no published oath; I would sue him
> > > personally for issuing the warrant from the vacant office of "judge".
> > > If his oath is properly published, I use it to show he was
> > > entertaining Larry's vacant cause.
> >
> > I doubt you will actually do any of these things.
>
> I have shown your immunity would reside in publishing an oath of
> office timely.
You have shown no such thing. You're really getting tiresome. I have
immunity. Period. Whether you like it or not.
> The statute applies to all officers and you admit you
> are an officer.
I am not an officer AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THIS SECTION. I can't make
it more clear.
The general counsel for a bank is a lawyer. As such, they are an
officer of the court - even though they probably never set foot in a
courtroom, and they certainly aren't in the public sector. Yet by your
distorted and contorted reading and understanding, they must take this
oath too. Do you see how bizarre that is?
> "§ 10. Official oaths. Every officer shall take and file the oath
> of office required by law, and every judicial officer of the unified
> court system, in addition, shall file a copy of said oath in the
> office of court administration, before he shall be entitled..."
>
> I doubt I will actually do any of these things too. The cause is
> killed at trial before even getting to the DA on these same grounds
> about oaths. Do you think that the police officer has filed a written
> oath?
Police officers do not have to file their oaths, either. They are not
"officers" as that term is used in the statute above.
> That office is also vacant. So the DA would be a fool to
> entertain prosecuting a cause from a vacant office. Even if the DA is
> running a vacant office.
>
> So I will not be looking for what is not there - even if your name
> really is Lawrence Glasser or whatever.
Which it isn't.
> I believe you are running a
> vacant office and there is no sense checking if you are telling the
> truth about a verbal oath of office - unless for some reason you end
> up prosecuting me.
Come to my jurisdiction and commit a crime. I would happily prosecute
you.
> That is highly unlikely that any attorney will be prosecuting me. The
> territorial law here provides that attorneys cannot be officers - they
> cannot be citizens of the US.
Attorneys cannot be citizens? Whoa, now you've gone off the deep end!
Deadrat
news:c3b8dcfe-4ead-4f35...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 24, 10:44 pm, esaupha...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Let me ask you one more question though. Please indulge me and any
>> readers here.
>>
>> This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
>> prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
>> officer and state employee? [well, two questions] Could I count on
>> him or her, the attorney in the black robe to have a written oath
>> properly filed according to the NY constitution and the statute I
>> cited?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David Merrill.
>
> This is directed toward Larry for an answer. Deadrat keeps wandering
> in and out of the premise.
Ha! That's just an assumption on your part. (Get it? "premise,"
assumption.)
So sue me.
_____________________
>
>> In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
>> not validate it easily.
>
>
> It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
> ______________________
>
> Larry never signed a written oath like required by NY statute.
Maybe. Why don't you file a FOIA requrest and find out?
> All Deadrat is doing is badgering and throwing insults.
Along with quoting the relevant sections of the NY Constitution and
statutes.
> Since this is about requirement to file a written oath,
I'm agreeing with you. What more do you want?
> and he is generating
> nonsense posts, Deadrat's posts and any posts in response to his posts
> are not worth the time to read.
So don't read them. Who's forcing you to?
> Dane Metcalfe does however present some of the the things in light of
> municipal corporate structure. Home Rule is not the Protocols and I
> forewarned the readers about the METRO 1313 article I linked. The
> Protocols are a forgery,
So why did you link to the article?
> admitted by the Jews as well.
Could we have some names?
> This term "forgery" means there was a previous genuine document that
> was altered to frame the Jews in place of the villain.
The term "forgery" means made up out of whole cloth by the Okhrana.
> I tried many gyrations to fit Larry's assertions into a framework and
> the only compatible scenario is a municipal structure - METRO
> organization - global municipal structure under Home Rule. This simply
> means that New York and UN combinatorial government gets to do what it
> wants. Larry gets to dawn mantles of identity that suit him and fit
> him as the situation prescribes in public policy over law.
Do you find that the heavy duty foil is better for tin hats? Just
wondering.
> We have seen it here. He spent plenty of our reading time letting us
> presume that like John Suthers in Colorado as vacant DA and currently
> vacant AG John pretends to be a state employee. That is to say, these
> offices when the officer properly files an oath of office in the
> proper place timely, is without question a state employee.
>
> Therefore I would implore the reader to skip over Deadrat's
> intentional distractions
translation: don't pay any attention to the facts.
> and simply remember that Larry stated that
> when he was hired he swore out an oath. That oath was nothing more
> than words in the air, witnessed by attorneys in a private context.
So he says.
> However, the mere fact was assimilating a mantle of being a state
> employee.
Assimilating a mantle?
> Larry has stated his immunity is an insurance company.
Larry has stated he has no and needs no insurance.
> It is not his oath. His oath would have to be written, and filed
> within 30 days by law at a qualified clerk and recorder - the
> registery for real estate titles will do;
There is no 30 day requirement in NY. It looks like the "registery" is
the country clerk.
> whatever you want to call that there in NY.
> That is obviously the requirement for him to have any Governmental
> Immunity.
Cite?
> That is what the oath of office and its stipulated
> recordation is about - acquiring a fidelity bond so that the taxpayer
> will foot the responsibility and pay up for any blunders Larry makes
> that cause injury.
The oath is about insuring fidelity to the law. Larry's told you that
his jurisdiction is self-insuring. Don't you believe him?
>
> Instead Larry has an insurance company for immunity.
If he has immunity, then he needs no insurance.
> This is private law and can easily be abated because one has to
> volunteer into that jurisdiction.
What is "private law"?
> It is not territorial; it is extraterritorial.
I think you mean extraterrestrial. The tinfoil hat will protect you.
> In territorial law, the original 13th Amendment applies as found in
> Colorado in 1861:
>
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_969.jpg
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_970.jpg
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_971.jpg
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_972.jpg
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_973.jpg
> http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_6744_974.jpg
>
> That is still the territorial law - the Bill of Rights for the
> Territory of Colorado even today. Pay particular attention to the
> Amendment XIII.
Let me guess. The Protocols of the Elders of Colorado?
> What I direct the reader to ponder is that there is no sense for Larry
> to have sworn any oath at all except that he is trying to at least
> mimic the state employees stipulated in the statute I keep quoting.
The NY Constitution requires it.
> Larry is a full officer of the court system - he is an attorney.
Do you understand the difference between an officer of the court and a
public officer in NY?
> Since he is bonded by a private insurance company that seems to
> require he mimic state employees in form, I am okay with Dane's
> assessment that he is a "quasi-judicial officer".
Name the company.
> And a proper publication of oath follows that mime.
I don't think he would be allowed to mime the oath.
> The purpose of publication is
> that I can verify his oath without having like Deadrat says go to
> Larry directly, wait for him to make an appointment, call me back
> spending my valuable time and efforts while trying to defend myself
> too.
You won't have to defend yourself if you plead insanity. Submit your
posting history as evidence.
> Simple. Easy to understand. I have even tried that approach - Larry,
> if not required by law, why is it that you do not publish your oath
> out of common courtesy and common sense?
He's probably poring over the Protocols to find the requirement.
> If you are busy prosecuting
> me, what makes you think that you can find loopholes that make me
> depend on you to get a certified copy of your oath of office?
If you're being prosecuted, what advantage do you think you'll obtain
from a copy of the oath?
> Are you ashamed of your oath of office?
> Is there a reason I cannot go find it at a convenient clerk office?
Check with the county clerk.
> Things like that. So I am putting it very simply in a question that
> will answer a lot more questions for me. I want to find out if the
> attorney in the black robe, will slip in and out of state employee
> status too - like Larry did for us here. I am sure that behind this
> black robed figure there is a circular Great Seal representing New
> York state.
Sure. But in NY it's probably the Great Seal of Satan, and he's really
representing the Worldwide Jewish Conspriacy.
_____________________________
>
>> Let me ask you one more question though. Please indulge me and any
>> readers here.
>>
>> This "judge" where you do your work, when you go into court to
>> prosecute through hearings and trials - is he or she a judicial
>> officer
Not a term of art that I can find in NY. The judge is a local public
officer in the judiciary of the county in which he presides. Close
enough.
> and state employee?
As Larry is an ADA in a NYC county, the judge would be a county employee.
>> [well, two questions] Could I count on
>> him or her, the attorney in the black robe to have a written oath
>> properly filed according to the NY constitution and the statute I
>> cited?
Why yes you can. The Secretary of State of NY has actually fielded this
question. Check out her web site. The answer is to file a FOIA request
with the couny clerk.
>> Regards,
>>
>> David Merrill.
Deadrat
news:x-5865B1.12...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <uK2cj.32578$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> esaup...@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:deb72bf0-52d3-42ea...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> :
<snip>
>> Did you forget your tinfoil hat?
>>
>> > In general common law, your verbal oath means nothing because I can
>> > not validate it easily.
>>
>> It's probably with the county clerk. File a FOIA request.
>
> In NY, its known as FOIL (Freedom of Information Law, not Act). My
> office actually has an entire unit designated to handle FOIL requests.
FOIL?
Insert your own jokes here:
|
|
|
|
Deadrat
news:x-74CD1A.12...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
Sold! I love that new Patroon smell.
Deadrat
sjc.supernews.net:
I think that's it. In my mind I picture you looking like a cross between
Sam Waterston and Angie Harmon.
Try getting that picture out of your head.