I do enjoy using the Socratic method on the very creative and industrious sovereign citizen activists, although I have grown a bit tired of it of late. Many have been very patient with me, given my typical regression into snark due to frustration. But, let's talk about the soundness of these very interesting legal tactics and how they fit into an overall legal strategy, assuming the strategic goal is to get a dismissal or acquittal rather than just doing something for the sake of protest.
Judicial Investitures: Kind of a big deal
|Judge Brown's Oath|
Of course you could claim that there is no proof that Judge Hogan, the oath giver, ever took an oath. But isn't that kind an affront to the constitution that so many Americans have fight and died for? I mean, doesn't that argument make being a judge sound contagious, like a virus? Certainly the founders had a better plan with a nomination and then advice and consent of the Senate than lawsuits and motions challenging oaths. If you have a problem with a judge, read the constitution (Hint: Article III, § 1, specifically provides judges with “good behavior” tenure and Artitcle II, § 4 allows for impeachment of "civil officers.")
If so, then there must be an example of it working. What are the odds of it working? 1 in 4? 1 in a million? Surely in a country this big and an idea so certain to win, there must be a large data set. Show me your “n.” And if there are no examples of success, why use it in a case that has constitutional and factual defenses? Is it just to irritate and make a political statement?
Challenging oaths is a violation of the sovcit Common Law Super Defense
Yes! It's true! Think about it: sitting on the bench for years without an oath and without being challenged or removed is akin to adversely possessing the bench and adverse possession is an equitable concept of the common law.
Second, the sovereign citizens, under their own faithful clinging to common law principles, would actually be estopped from challenging the propriety of said oath after so many years. In other words, it's inequitable to challenge a judge's oath years after it was made because witnesses die, videos get recorded over, etc. (equitable estoppel is like a statute of limitations in a court of equity).