Friday, August 12, 2016

Debunking the Sovereign Citizen Movement - Oaths of Judges

Another day, another oath challenge.

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.


[ADVERTISEMENT: Buy a Pocket Constitution on Amazon. Proceeds to Oregon schools!]

As related to the Malheur protesters' case there have been some relentless challenges to the oath of Judge Anna Brown.

Judicial Investitures: Kind of a big deal

Did you know that all attorneys in Oregon swear to support the constitution of the United States? The swearing in ceremony is kind of a big deal. I got chills when saying that part of mine even though there were hundreds doing the same thing. Of course the swearing in ceremony (investiture) of a judge is even a bigger deal with lots of pomp and speeches. It's not something you ever forget. Attorneys and family and friends go to watch the judge take her oath, so there are dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. If it was done in the age of the iPhone there are probably a ton of videos. 

[ADVERTISEMENT: Buy a Pocket Constitution on Amazon. Proceeds to Oregon schools!]

Here's the evidence of the oath: (1) The judge said in court that she took an oath. (2) Here's a copy of her oath
Judge Brown's Oath

Seems to be compelling evidence of an oath with no evidence to the contrary. What would be the evidence to the contrary? And what more would you need to prove an 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.")

[ADVERTISEMENT: Buy a Pocket Constitution on Amazon. Proceeds to Oregon schools!]

Notwithstanding the proof of an oath, assuming there wasn't one, what is the ultimate goal of the legal strategy? What do you think happens? Is it to allow a defendant to feel better if they lose so they can walk around the prison yard and discuss how unjust and illegal the court was? Or is there some practical, hidden value? 

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

Here's the irony of the sovcit oaths argument: For a sovereign citizen who honors the common law to challenge a judge's oath of office years after an appointment is actually a violation of common law. 

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). 


So please walk me through why the common law isn't on Judge Brown's side in that scenario. And tell me why it's not a colossal waste of resources in a case with hundreds of witnesses to interview and exculpatory video evidence of a peaceful protest to review in order to actually demonstrate that the accused are actually not guilty! I mean, there are allegations of an actual FBI cover-up for gosh sake. Seems like resources could be out there prepping for trial.

So, seriously, enough with the oaths argument. And maritime law. And the fringe on the flag. This was a protest and the trial will be about the protest. And the jury will decide.

By Mike Arnold
8-12-16

[ADVERTISEMENT: Buy a Pocket Constitution on Amazon. Proceeds to Oregon schools!]



6 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ammon himself said it was NOT a protest. It's part of the video evidence to be presented by the prosecution at trial. It's readily available online. You don't take over public property, rename it, go through its private records... and control access with armed guards at a "protest". You don't lend your van to a guy so he can bring a machine gun that can shoot up a tank and shoot aircraft out of the sky... to a "protest". You don't solicit people to bring their guns and be prepared to die for the cause...to a "protest". Sorry, Mike, but you can't possibly be this stupid. And if you are? God help your future clients.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > please walk me through why the common law isn't on Judge Brown's side in that scenario

    That's the wrong question because:

    (a) the Paperwork Reduction Act was violated when the Office of Personnel Management published a COUNTERFEIT Standard Form 61 at OPM's website; that PRA is not "common law" but an Act of Congress codified at 44 USC 3501 et seq.;

    (b) the Public Protection Clause in the PRA makes it very clear that a missing OMB control number is all that any Citizen needs to demonstrate: that omission is a "complete defense, bar or otherwise at any time": 44 USC 3512;

    (c) Michael Hogan lacked authority to administer Brown's SF-61, because he has refused to produce 2 required credentials: that's yet another reason why Brown's SF-61 is invalid;

    (d) the same defect also exists in Brown's OATH OF OFFICE as required by 28 USC 453 a/k/a the "second OATH" with language specific to the office of Federal Judge: as such, Brown's second OATH OF OFFICE is also fatally defective.

    How many times has your law firm advised clients that ignorance of the law is no excuse?

    Both Brown and Hogan were presented with the evidence summarized above, and both have failed or refused to cure these defects: that's FRAUD.

    Cf. "Fraud" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

    That's FRAUD because both have failed to disclose what SHOULD have been disclosed.

    When Brown and Hogan were admitted to the State Bar, did they or did they not take a prior OATH i.e. to support and defend the authority of Congress to enact all laws requiring valid credentials?

    They have no excuses now.

    /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have been aware of Paul's work for quite some time now and seen him Violet and in numerous cases and I've yet to see an attorney properly rebutted it it would be helpful to have an attorney rebutted point-by-point to help us understand where they think he's wrong which I don't believe he is. I've read it many times with supporating case law. The only thing I can figure is it most attorneys are fearful of having their careers ended prematurely by trying to use the position!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have been aware of Paul's work for quite some time now and seen him Violet and in numerous cases and I've yet to see an attorney properly rebutted it it would be helpful to have an attorney rebutted point-by-point to help us understand where they think he's wrong which I don't believe he is. I've read it many times with supporating case law. The only thing I can figure is it most attorneys are fearful of having their careers ended prematurely by trying to use the position!

    ReplyDelete
  6. As I've mentioned before, federal judges can take five different oaths. One constitutional oath, two statutory oaths and two combined oaths. From 1861 to 1990 oaths were 5usc3331(constitutional oath) and 1STAT.73,Sec.8,(what I like to call the Marbury v Madison oath) sometimes taken separately, sometimes taken as a combined oaths. Post 1990 oaths were 5usc3331 and 28usc453(judicial oath) sometimes taken separately, sometimes combined. Judge Anna Brown took the pre 1990 oaths in 1999. She was supposed to take the post 1990 oaths. So what's the big deal? The pre 1990 (Marbury v Madison oath) is employed and defined in Marbury v Madison as the justification for the power of judicial review.(On the last page of Marbury v Madison). The post 1990 judicial oath is not in Marbury v Madison, so it cannot be employed as the power of judicial review. But nonetheless it still has to be taken by post 1990 judges,including Judge Anna Brown, it's the law.

    ReplyDelete