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.
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.")
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?
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).
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
8-12-16
