Important definitions to know if you wish to see the fraud
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1127
Prev | Next
§ 1127. Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
How Current is This?
In the construction of this chapter, unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context—
The United States includes and embraces all territory which is under its jurisdiction and control.
The word “commerce” means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.
The term “principal register” refers to the register provided for by sections 1051 to 1072 of this title, and the term “supplemental register” refers to the register provided for by sections 1091 to 1096 of this title.
The term “person” and any other word or term used to designate the applicant or other entitled to a benefit or privilege or rendered liable under the provisions of this chapter includes a juristic person as well as a natural person. The term “juristic person” includes a firm, corporation, union, association, or other organization capable of suing and being sued in a court of law.
The term “person” also includes the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States. The United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, and any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization and consent of the United States, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
The term “person” also includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
The terms “applicant” and “registrant” embrace the legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns of such applicant or registrant.
The term “Director” means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The term “related company” means any person whose use of a mark is controlled by the owner of the mark with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used.
The terms “trade name” and “commercial name” mean any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.
The term “trademark” includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof—
(1) used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.
The term “service mark” means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof—
(1) used by a person, or
(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.
The term “certification mark” means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof—
(1) used by a person other than its owner, or
(2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to use in commerce and files an application to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such person’s goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization.
The term “collective mark” means a trademark or service mark—
(1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, or
(2) which such cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
and includes marks indicating membership in a union, an association, or other organization.
The term “mark” includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark.
The term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—
(1) on goods when—
(A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
(B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
(2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.
A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned” if either of the following occurs:
(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. “Use” of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.
(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a test for determining abandonment under this paragraph.
The term “dilution” means the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of—
(1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or
(2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.
The term “colorable imitation” includes any mark which so resembles a registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive.
The term “registered mark” means a mark registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office under this chapter or under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or the Act of March 19, 1920. The phrase “marks registered in the Patent and Trademark Office” means registered marks.
The term “Act of March 3, 1881”, “Act of February 20, 1905”, or “Act of March 19, 1920”, means the respective Act as amended.
A “counterfeit” is a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark.
The term “domain name” means any alphanumeric designation which is registered with or assigned by any domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority as part of an electronic address on the Internet.
The term “Internet” has the meaning given that term in section 230 (f)(1) of title 47.
Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa.
The intent of this chapter is to regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce; to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation; to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition; to prevent fraud and deception in such commerce by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks; and to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.
Search this title:
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Court: Smell of pot doesn't justify arrest
POSTED July 17, 12:31 PM
The Supreme Court of Washington ruled unanimously today that a police officer acted improperly by arresting all occupants of a vehicle after detecting a “moderate” smell of marijuana coming from the car. The Court ruled the constitution requires individualized probable cause to justify an arrest and search of each occupant of a vehicle.
On April 6, 2006, a state trooper followed and pulled over a vehicle with dark, tinted windows. Both occupants of the car recognized the trooper, “presumably based on prior encounters,” the court opinion dryly notes.
The trooper detected a smell of marijuana coming from the car and arrested the driver and the passenger, Jeremy Grande. A subsequent search of Grande revealed a marijuana pipe with a small amount of marijuana. A search of the car turned up a joint in the car’s ashtray which the driver claimed as hers. The driver and Grande were arrested; Grande was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. At a pretrial hearing Grande argued that probable cause did not exist to arrest him for possession. The district court agreed. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court.
Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution states: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” A police officer must have probable cause for a warrantless arrest, and a valid arrest generally gives the officer authority to conduct a search.
The question in this case was whether the smell of marijuana justified the trooper’s intrusion into Grande’s privacy as a vehicle passenger. The Supreme Court pointed out that the right to privacy is individually held, and requires an individual finding of probable cause:
Each individual possesses the right to privacy, meaning that person has the right to be left alone by police unless there is probable cause based on objective facts that the person is committing a crime. In other settings, we have concluded that where officers do not have anything to independently connect an individual to illegal activity, no probable cause exists and an arrest or search of that person is invalid under article I, section 7.
In a prior case the smell of marijuana was sufficient cause, as the driver was the only occupant of the car. In Grande’s case, however, the court reasoned the mere smell of pot did not sufficiently point to either individual.
Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual. We cannot wait until the people we are associating with “alleviat[e] the suspicion” from us. Unless there is specific evidence pinpointing the crime on a person, that person has a right to their own privacy and constitutional protection against police searches and seizures.
The court pointed out that the trooper acted improperly by arresting both occupants without establishing sufficient individual justifications.
This does not mean, however, that a law enforcement officer must simply walk away from a vehicle from which the odor of marijuana emanates and in which more than one occupant is present if the officer cannot determine which occupant possessed or used the illegal drug. In this case, because the officer had training and experience to identify the odor of marijuana and smelled this odor emanating from the vehicle, he had probable cause to search the vehicle. Instead, here the police officer arrested both occupants without first establishing individualized probable cause. Thus, Grande’s warrantless arrest was invalid.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled the arrest and search of Jeremy Grande were improper.
We hold that the smell of marijuana in the general area where an individual is located is insufficient, without more, to support probable cause for arrest. Where no other evidence exists linking the passenger to any criminal activity, an arrest of the passenger on the suspicion of possession of illegal substances, and any subsequent searches, is invalid and an unconstitutional invasion of that individual's right to privacy.
Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote the unanimous ruling.
For more info: State v. Grande. The information contained in this article should not be construed as legal advice.
The Supreme Court of Washington ruled unanimously today that a police officer acted improperly by arresting all occupants of a vehicle after detecting a “moderate” smell of marijuana coming from the car. The Court ruled the constitution requires individualized probable cause to justify an arrest and search of each occupant of a vehicle.
On April 6, 2006, a state trooper followed and pulled over a vehicle with dark, tinted windows. Both occupants of the car recognized the trooper, “presumably based on prior encounters,” the court opinion dryly notes.
The trooper detected a smell of marijuana coming from the car and arrested the driver and the passenger, Jeremy Grande. A subsequent search of Grande revealed a marijuana pipe with a small amount of marijuana. A search of the car turned up a joint in the car’s ashtray which the driver claimed as hers. The driver and Grande were arrested; Grande was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. At a pretrial hearing Grande argued that probable cause did not exist to arrest him for possession. The district court agreed. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court.
Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution states: “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” A police officer must have probable cause for a warrantless arrest, and a valid arrest generally gives the officer authority to conduct a search.
The question in this case was whether the smell of marijuana justified the trooper’s intrusion into Grande’s privacy as a vehicle passenger. The Supreme Court pointed out that the right to privacy is individually held, and requires an individual finding of probable cause:
Each individual possesses the right to privacy, meaning that person has the right to be left alone by police unless there is probable cause based on objective facts that the person is committing a crime. In other settings, we have concluded that where officers do not have anything to independently connect an individual to illegal activity, no probable cause exists and an arrest or search of that person is invalid under article I, section 7.
In a prior case the smell of marijuana was sufficient cause, as the driver was the only occupant of the car. In Grande’s case, however, the court reasoned the mere smell of pot did not sufficiently point to either individual.
Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual. We cannot wait until the people we are associating with “alleviat[e] the suspicion” from us. Unless there is specific evidence pinpointing the crime on a person, that person has a right to their own privacy and constitutional protection against police searches and seizures.
The court pointed out that the trooper acted improperly by arresting both occupants without establishing sufficient individual justifications.
This does not mean, however, that a law enforcement officer must simply walk away from a vehicle from which the odor of marijuana emanates and in which more than one occupant is present if the officer cannot determine which occupant possessed or used the illegal drug. In this case, because the officer had training and experience to identify the odor of marijuana and smelled this odor emanating from the vehicle, he had probable cause to search the vehicle. Instead, here the police officer arrested both occupants without first establishing individualized probable cause. Thus, Grande’s warrantless arrest was invalid.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled the arrest and search of Jeremy Grande were improper.
We hold that the smell of marijuana in the general area where an individual is located is insufficient, without more, to support probable cause for arrest. Where no other evidence exists linking the passenger to any criminal activity, an arrest of the passenger on the suspicion of possession of illegal substances, and any subsequent searches, is invalid and an unconstitutional invasion of that individual's right to privacy.
Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote the unanimous ruling.
For more info: State v. Grande. The information contained in this article should not be construed as legal advice.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
When Pedophile Judges Fear Exposure
When Pedophile Judges Fear Exposure
By Henry Makow PhD
5-7-8
Under a thin veneer of Law, we are governed by a secret network of traitors, pedophiles, Satanists and criminals, masquerading as prominent lawyers and judges, politicians, businessmen and police chiefs. They are often Freemasons who derive their power from the central banking cartel based in London which controls the mass media and seeks to impose its tyranny in the guise of "world government." If you don't believe me, you've probably never heard the names Renate Andres-Auger, Jack Cram and Bruce Clark. They are Vancouver lawyers who were dragged from the courtroom, drugged, disbarred and committed to mental hospitals when they attempted to expose this clique in the 1990's. CITY CONFIDENTIAL Beautiful Vancouver B.C., site of the 2010 Winter Olympics, was described by the "Christian Science Monitor" in 1997 as "a pedophiles' paradise," a place known for its "notorious sex trade," with an international reputation "as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex." In 1999, UNESCO named Vancouver one of the world's top three centers for sex trafficking, child porn and pedophilia because of "suspected judicial protection for child sex offenders." In 1994, Renate Andres-Auger, an aboriginal lawyer and single mother of six girls, found irregularities in a land claim case that were very damning to the judicial process. She also charged certain judges and lawyers with a criminal conspiracy to aid and protect pedophiles. She and her own lawyer Jack Cram presented evidence, including photographs and eye witness accounts that two Supreme Court judges were engaged in pedophilia and were using their office to protect other pedophiles. She named the prestigious "Vancouver Club" as a center of this pedophile ring. (Kevin Annett, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust," p. 147-150) The Judge ordered Auger removed from the court. "The sheriffs dragged Andres-Auger out of the court and you could hear her thumping down the stairs behind the judge's bench." Then the Judge ordered the sheriffs to remove her lawyer Jack Cram. Police were called to clear the courtroom of about 80 supporters. According to a press release (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/cram.html), this is what happened when Cram took the cause to the public: "One night at about 11:30 p.m., after finishing a radio interview, Mr. Cram returned home, parked his car, and while walking to his apartment building five policemen emerged out of the bushes and leaped on him. He was put in an unmarked van and as soon as they got him in they "shot him full of something" and he was transported to the psychiatric ward of Vancouver General Hospital -- as a "no information" patient. SAVING JACK CRAM "When the committee found out where Mr. Cram was, they had to go to Prince George, some 800 kms away, to find a lawyer who would file a habeas-corpus writ to release Mr. Cram but it was never used as Mr. Cram was again, unexpectedly, released after being held this time for 7 days. "Mr. Cram went directly from the psychiatric ward to a meeting of the committee ... He was still under the effects of the drugs that had been administered to him up until about two hours prior to his release. But he was able to explain everything that had happened. It was two of his closest associates, one of which was the one who had bad mouthed him on TV, that signed papers to have Mr. Cram committed. "After a trial, the court disbarred him for a year and fined him $10,000. He was bankrupt and had lost his practice. Cram moved to his ranch in Princeton, a community about 130 km north of Vancouver. "According to Judge Gibbs, in making his recent judgment on Dr. Clark's appeal, said "after [Mr. Cram] received treatment for his paranoid-delusions mental illness, he subsequently dropped all his court cases that he had started in his delusional phase" and one of the conditions for returning to the bar after one year was that he continue to receive psychiatric treatment for that year. Mr. Cram could have been jailed for three months if he didn't receive the treatment or defaulted on paying the fine." Renate Andres-Auger has gone underground. Law Society of BC official James Taylor, who disbarred Andres-Auger and Cram, became a BC Supreme Court judge and issued an injunction in 2002 against mentioning the pedophile charges. Ed John, a native leader accused of using Mafia tactics, and running cocaine and child prostitution rings, was actually named Minister of Child and Family Services in the NDP (socialist) provincial government in 2000. The injunction also covered any mention of these charges. COMMENTS ON THIS SHAMEFUL EPISODE Deborah Wade, a founder of Amnesty International in Vancouver, said in 1999 (http://www.preferrednetwork.com/Pedophilia_In_Vancouver.htm): "The Cram/Andres-Auger story, to this day, remains a very strange and fearful tale of alleged corruption and pedophilia in high places. It is also a story which has never yet been completely told. Perhaps if it were, along with a few other strange stories, we as Canadians would have little reason to gasp at the exposure of pedophile rings in Belgium operating in high places two years ago. The matter of cover-ups possibly existing for those in high places in Canada is becoming more and more credible as more and more people speak out." In 2007 Anthony Hall , a professor at the University of Lethbridge, commented in "Canadian Dimension" magazine: "No public investigation into the treatment and accusations of Andres-Auger and Cram ever took place. We can only speculate, therefore, on the circumstances behind such a dramatic collapse of dignity and due process in the criminal-justice system. Certainly it is made to seem probable that some highly placed group or individual believed that he, she, or they had a great deal to lose if Andres-Auger and Cram had been able to press charges." Hall relates how in 1995, when lawyer Bruce Clark (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/currvit.html)tried to make a legal argument on behalf of Aboriginal clients, an incident transpired in a rural B.C. court similar to when Andres-Auger and Cram tried to bring their evidence forward. Clark was taken into custody and sent to an institution for a compulsory psychological examination. This is how dissidents were treated in another Illuminati satrap, the USSR. Granted these events took place 13-14 years ago, but you can bet they created a chill that continues today. CONCLUSION The Illuminati has a vital interest in using Native leadership to confiscate Aboriginal land and water, and to operate drug trafficking and pedophile rings. That's why lawyers who attempted to represent ordinary Natives incurred the wrath of these (moral) reptiles. That's when the mask slipped, and we had a glimpse of the ugly reality of our society. Another man to watch is Kevin Annett (http:// www.hiddenfromhistory.org
Source: http://rense.com/general81/rxk.htm
By Henry Makow PhD
5-7-8
Under a thin veneer of Law, we are governed by a secret network of traitors, pedophiles, Satanists and criminals, masquerading as prominent lawyers and judges, politicians, businessmen and police chiefs. They are often Freemasons who derive their power from the central banking cartel based in London which controls the mass media and seeks to impose its tyranny in the guise of "world government." If you don't believe me, you've probably never heard the names Renate Andres-Auger, Jack Cram and Bruce Clark. They are Vancouver lawyers who were dragged from the courtroom, drugged, disbarred and committed to mental hospitals when they attempted to expose this clique in the 1990's. CITY CONFIDENTIAL Beautiful Vancouver B.C., site of the 2010 Winter Olympics, was described by the "Christian Science Monitor" in 1997 as "a pedophiles' paradise," a place known for its "notorious sex trade," with an international reputation "as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex." In 1999, UNESCO named Vancouver one of the world's top three centers for sex trafficking, child porn and pedophilia because of "suspected judicial protection for child sex offenders." In 1994, Renate Andres-Auger, an aboriginal lawyer and single mother of six girls, found irregularities in a land claim case that were very damning to the judicial process. She also charged certain judges and lawyers with a criminal conspiracy to aid and protect pedophiles. She and her own lawyer Jack Cram presented evidence, including photographs and eye witness accounts that two Supreme Court judges were engaged in pedophilia and were using their office to protect other pedophiles. She named the prestigious "Vancouver Club" as a center of this pedophile ring. (Kevin Annett, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust," p. 147-150) The Judge ordered Auger removed from the court. "The sheriffs dragged Andres-Auger out of the court and you could hear her thumping down the stairs behind the judge's bench." Then the Judge ordered the sheriffs to remove her lawyer Jack Cram. Police were called to clear the courtroom of about 80 supporters. According to a press release (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/cram.html), this is what happened when Cram took the cause to the public: "One night at about 11:30 p.m., after finishing a radio interview, Mr. Cram returned home, parked his car, and while walking to his apartment building five policemen emerged out of the bushes and leaped on him. He was put in an unmarked van and as soon as they got him in they "shot him full of something" and he was transported to the psychiatric ward of Vancouver General Hospital -- as a "no information" patient. SAVING JACK CRAM "When the committee found out where Mr. Cram was, they had to go to Prince George, some 800 kms away, to find a lawyer who would file a habeas-corpus writ to release Mr. Cram but it was never used as Mr. Cram was again, unexpectedly, released after being held this time for 7 days. "Mr. Cram went directly from the psychiatric ward to a meeting of the committee ... He was still under the effects of the drugs that had been administered to him up until about two hours prior to his release. But he was able to explain everything that had happened. It was two of his closest associates, one of which was the one who had bad mouthed him on TV, that signed papers to have Mr. Cram committed. "After a trial, the court disbarred him for a year and fined him $10,000. He was bankrupt and had lost his practice. Cram moved to his ranch in Princeton, a community about 130 km north of Vancouver. "According to Judge Gibbs, in making his recent judgment on Dr. Clark's appeal, said "after [Mr. Cram] received treatment for his paranoid-delusions mental illness, he subsequently dropped all his court cases that he had started in his delusional phase" and one of the conditions for returning to the bar after one year was that he continue to receive psychiatric treatment for that year. Mr. Cram could have been jailed for three months if he didn't receive the treatment or defaulted on paying the fine." Renate Andres-Auger has gone underground. Law Society of BC official James Taylor, who disbarred Andres-Auger and Cram, became a BC Supreme Court judge and issued an injunction in 2002 against mentioning the pedophile charges. Ed John, a native leader accused of using Mafia tactics, and running cocaine and child prostitution rings, was actually named Minister of Child and Family Services in the NDP (socialist) provincial government in 2000. The injunction also covered any mention of these charges. COMMENTS ON THIS SHAMEFUL EPISODE Deborah Wade, a founder of Amnesty International in Vancouver, said in 1999 (http://www.preferrednetwork.com/Pedophilia_In_Vancouver.htm): "The Cram/Andres-Auger story, to this day, remains a very strange and fearful tale of alleged corruption and pedophilia in high places. It is also a story which has never yet been completely told. Perhaps if it were, along with a few other strange stories, we as Canadians would have little reason to gasp at the exposure of pedophile rings in Belgium operating in high places two years ago. The matter of cover-ups possibly existing for those in high places in Canada is becoming more and more credible as more and more people speak out." In 2007 Anthony Hall
Source: http://rense.com/general81/rxk.htm
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Government Donkey Raffle
Young Chuck, moved to Texas and bought a Donkey from a farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the Donkey the next day. The next day he drove up and said, 'Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died.'
Chuck replied,
'Well, then just give me my money back.'
The farmer said,
'Can't do that. I went and spent it already.'
Chuck said,
'Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey.'
The farmer asked,
'What ya gonna do with him?
Chuck said,
'I'm going to raffle him off.'
The farmer said,
'You can't raffle off a dead donkey!'
Chuck said,
'Sure I can Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead.'
A month later, the farmer met up with
Chuck and asked, 'What happened with that dead donkey?'
Chuck said,
'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898.00.'
The farmer said,
'Didn't anyone complain?'
Chuck said,
'Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back.'
Chuck now works for the government.
Chuck replied,
'Well, then just give me my money back.'
The farmer said,
'Can't do that. I went and spent it already.'
Chuck said,
'Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey.'
The farmer asked,
'What ya gonna do with him?
Chuck said,
'I'm going to raffle him off.'
The farmer said,
'You can't raffle off a dead donkey!'
Chuck said,
'Sure I can Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead.'
A month later, the farmer met up with
Chuck and asked, 'What happened with that dead donkey?'
Chuck said,
'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $898.00.'
The farmer said,
'Didn't anyone complain?'
Chuck said,
'Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back.'
Chuck now works for the government.
Friday, July 25, 2008
FDA finally accepts Mercury fillings as Poison just as we told them
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080604/hl_nm/fda_dentalfillings_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Silver-colored metal dental fillings contain mercury that may cause health problems in pregnant women, children and fetuses, the Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday after settling a related lawsuit.
As part of the settlement with several consumer advocacy groups, the FDA agreed to alert consumers about the potential risks on its website and to issue a more specific rule next year for fillings that contain mercury, FDA spokeswoman Peper Long said.
Millions of Americans have the fillings, or amalgams, to patch cavities in their teeth.
"Dental Amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses," the FDA said in a notice on its Web site.
"Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner," the agency said.
The FDA said it did not recommend that people who currently have mercury fillings get them removed.
The FDA must issue the new rules in July 2009, Long said.
Such a rule could impact makers of metal fillings, which include Dentsply International Inc and Danaher Corp unit Kerr.
The new rule will give the agency "special controls (that) can provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the product," Long said.
The lawsuit settlement was reached on Monday with several advocacy groups, including Moms Against Mercury, which had sought to have mercury fillings removed from the U.S. market.
While the FDA previously said various studies showed no harm from mercury fillings, some consumer groups contend the fillings can trigger a range of health problems such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. In 2006, an FDA advisory panel of outside experts said most people would not be harmed by them, but said the agency needed more information.
Mercury has been linked to brain and kidney damage at certain levels. Amalgams contain half mercury and half a combination of other metals.
Charles Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups called Consumers for Dental Choice, said the agency's move represented an about-face. "Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no Science exists that Amalgam is unsafe," he said in a statement.
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. analyst Ipsita Smolinski said the FDA is not likely to outright ban the fillings next year but will probably call for restrictions.
"We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals," Smolinski wrote in a research note on Wednesday.
Fewer patients have been opting for mercury fillings in recent years, instead choosing lighter options such as tooth-colored resin composites.
Only 30 percent of fillings given to patients were mercury-filled ones as of 2003, according to the American Dental Association (ADA). Other options include glass cement and porcelain as well as other metals such as gold, but they cost more and are less durable, the group has said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Silver-colored metal dental fillings contain mercury that may cause health problems in pregnant women, children and fetuses, the Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday after settling a related lawsuit.
As part of the settlement with several consumer advocacy groups, the FDA agreed to alert consumers about the potential risks on its website and to issue a more specific rule next year for fillings that contain mercury, FDA spokeswoman Peper Long said.
Millions of Americans have the fillings, or amalgams, to patch cavities in their teeth.
"Dental Amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses," the FDA said in a notice on its Web site.
"Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner," the agency said.
The FDA said it did not recommend that people who currently have mercury fillings get them removed.
The FDA must issue the new rules in July 2009, Long said.
Such a rule could impact makers of metal fillings, which include Dentsply International Inc and Danaher Corp unit Kerr.
The new rule will give the agency "special controls (that) can provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the product," Long said.
The lawsuit settlement was reached on Monday with several advocacy groups, including Moms Against Mercury, which had sought to have mercury fillings removed from the U.S. market.
While the FDA previously said various studies showed no harm from mercury fillings, some consumer groups contend the fillings can trigger a range of health problems such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. In 2006, an FDA advisory panel of outside experts said most people would not be harmed by them, but said the agency needed more information.
Mercury has been linked to brain and kidney damage at certain levels. Amalgams contain half mercury and half a combination of other metals.
Charles Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups called Consumers for Dental Choice, said the agency's move represented an about-face. "Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no Science exists that Amalgam is unsafe," he said in a statement.
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. analyst Ipsita Smolinski said the FDA is not likely to outright ban the fillings next year but will probably call for restrictions.
"We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals," Smolinski wrote in a research note on Wednesday.
Fewer patients have been opting for mercury fillings in recent years, instead choosing lighter options such as tooth-colored resin composites.
Only 30 percent of fillings given to patients were mercury-filled ones as of 2003, according to the American Dental Association (ADA). Other options include glass cement and porcelain as well as other metals such as gold, but they cost more and are less durable, the group has said.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Finally..... Free speech Victory in Canada!
A Free Speech
Victory In Canada
By Harmony Grant
7-10-8
The Canadian Human Rights Commission just did something it never did before-it dismissed a hate speech complaint. On June 27, CHRC dismissed the complaint against Maclean's magazine, which was accused of anti-Muslim hate speech. The Muslims' disappointed lawyer said the defeat was not a surprise. He cited "inappropriate political pressure" and a political climate where hate speech laws and commissions are themselves under attack. One word comes to mind at this pointyahoo!
Think about it. The commission had convicted everyone else ever hauled before them. It exists to prosecute and punish "hate speech" and "hate crimes," to doggedly track down the politically incorrect and their "hurtful" bias. Yet, CHRC had to throw out this case, and it wasn't even a surprise. It was expected because "the international controversy sparked by this case has prompted many in Canada to question the very basis of the so-called "hate speech" laws," as a columnist put it.
This event is a break in the wall. It offers incredible hope. Canada's speech police, for the first time ever, dismissed a complaint because of pressure against hate laws. This pressure threatens to fracture the entire foundation of these freedom-stealing, politically based laws. Could America's northern neighbor return to fair English law and throw out hate speech laws and tribunals? Stranger things have happened. We just celebrated July 4, an independence won by the sacrificial heroism of a patriotic minority. If enough Canadians and Americans care about saving freedom, this battle could be won.
Canada's National Post reported June 18 that the besieged CHRC was going to review itself and its speech-punishing ways, particularly how it reviews internet "hate." The Post said the commission has been the focus of "a divisive national debate." People are realizing you can't punish "hurtful words" without destroying freedom of speech, fundamental to democracy.
We've been praying for this. "Anti-hate" laws are advanced with the argument that people should be protected from discrimination and hurtful speech. But you can't remove those things from society without removing liberty, too. The government must police citizens' behaviors, words, and ultimately our thoughts. This turns into insane, scary tyranny very fast. (Example: It's absurd that a government agency in the UK is saying toddlers should be rebuked for racism if they turn down spicy food or call each other names. But you could laugh only if it weren't real. This tyranny of government is just one of the mind-boggling results of empowering people in office to decide what other people are allowed to say, think, feel, or believe.)
Canadian MP Keith Martin, a liberal lover of free speech, introduced a measure in February to completely repeal Canada's hate speech law (Sec. 13(1) of the Human Rights Act). APost article in early June reported that nine MPs had publicly criticized the CHRC and one introduced a motion calling for its review. Post said outrage at the hate speech tribunals "has come from across the political spectrum -- from white supremacists on the far right to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association on the left." The article explains that current "anti-hate" law in Canada allow for convictions even if the "criminal" didn't intend to spread hatred and even if his or her speech was perfectly true! This is outrageous.
Even as early as May, the outcry against hate laws was so strong that the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a leading advocate of powerful anti-hate laws" in Canada, told the Postit might support changes to Canada's hate law.
The Post staunchly defends free speech and calls for Sec. 13(1) to be completely repealed. It says, "Christians don't get a veto on words or images that blaspheme God and his prophets. The same must be true of Islam -- not to mention Judaism, Hinduism and every other faith. No matter what your faith, the trade-off for living in a society that honours free speech is the requirement to grow a thick skin."
Victory In Canada
By Harmony Grant
7-10-8
The Canadian Human Rights Commission just did something it never did before-it dismissed a hate speech complaint. On June 27, CHRC dismissed the complaint against Maclean's magazine, which was accused of anti-Muslim hate speech. The Muslims' disappointed lawyer said the defeat was not a surprise. He cited "inappropriate political pressure" and a political climate where hate speech laws and commissions are themselves under attack. One word comes to mind at this pointyahoo!
Think about it. The commission had convicted everyone else ever hauled before them. It exists to prosecute and punish "hate speech" and "hate crimes," to doggedly track down the politically incorrect and their "hurtful" bias. Yet, CHRC had to throw out this case, and it wasn't even a surprise. It was expected because "the international controversy sparked by this case has prompted many in Canada to question the very basis of the so-called "hate speech" laws," as a columnist put it.
This event is a break in the wall. It offers incredible hope. Canada's speech police, for the first time ever, dismissed a complaint because of pressure against hate laws. This pressure threatens to fracture the entire foundation of these freedom-stealing, politically based laws. Could America's northern neighbor return to fair English law and throw out hate speech laws and tribunals? Stranger things have happened. We just celebrated July 4, an independence won by the sacrificial heroism of a patriotic minority. If enough Canadians and Americans care about saving freedom, this battle could be won.
Canada's National Post reported June 18 that the besieged CHRC was going to review itself and its speech-punishing ways, particularly how it reviews internet "hate." The Post said the commission has been the focus of "a divisive national debate." People are realizing you can't punish "hurtful words" without destroying freedom of speech, fundamental to democracy.
We've been praying for this. "Anti-hate" laws are advanced with the argument that people should be protected from discrimination and hurtful speech. But you can't remove those things from society without removing liberty, too. The government must police citizens' behaviors, words, and ultimately our thoughts. This turns into insane, scary tyranny very fast. (Example: It's absurd that a government agency in the UK is saying toddlers should be rebuked for racism if they turn down spicy food or call each other names. But you could laugh only if it weren't real. This tyranny of government is just one of the mind-boggling results of empowering people in office to decide what other people are allowed to say, think, feel, or believe.)
Canadian MP Keith Martin, a liberal lover of free speech, introduced a measure in February to completely repeal Canada's hate speech law (Sec. 13(1) of the Human Rights Act). A
Even as early as May, the outcry against hate laws was so strong that the Canadian Jewish Congress, "a leading advocate of powerful anti-hate laws" in Canada, told the Post
The Post staunchly defends free speech and calls for Sec. 13(1) to be completely repealed. It says, "Christians don't get a veto on words or images that blaspheme God and his prophets. The same must be true of Islam -- not to mention Judaism, Hinduism and every other faith. No matter what your faith, the trade-off for living in a society that honours free speech is the requirement to grow a thick skin."
Mp's angrily condemn Morgentaler Appointment
Numerous MPs Condemn Morgentaler Order of Canada Decision
Say it divides Canadians and debases the Order of Canada
By Tim Waggoner
OTTAWA, July 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian Members of Parliament across the nation are condemning the conferral of the country's highest civic award on its most prolific murderer of the unborn.
Numerous MPs are criticizing the decision to give the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler for various reasons, saying the award was given in a controversial and underhanded manner, that the choice of recipient divides rather than unites Canadians and that giving the award to Morgentaler essentially debases the award itself. These same MPs are urging their constituents to immediately contact the Governor General's office (see end of article for contact info) in order to express their disappointment and to urge the Governor General to revoke the award.
Andrew Scheer, Conservative Member of Parliament for Regina-Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, stated, "I am deeply troubled by the announcement that Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada. I am greatly disappointed that Canada's highest civilian honour has been politicized and debased by this appointment."
He continued, saying, "Henry Morgentaler has been a central figure in a very divisive and emotional debate. Far from uniting Canadians with feelings of pride and appreciation, there is a significant portion of the population who will be outraged by this decision. I would urge all Canadians who are dismayed by this appointment to contact the Governor-General and the advisory panel to express their disappointment."
Conservative MP Ken Epp for Sherwood Park, Edmonton, said abortionists have "gone too far." Epp also questioned whether Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, head of the Canadian Supreme Court and the Order of Canada advisory council, who made the decision to give the award to Morgentaler, could legitimately claim legal impartiality on the contentious issue of abortion. McLachlin made the decision despite the fact that the Advisory Council - like Canada - was divided on the issue.
"Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," said Epp.
Rod Bruinooge, Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, Manitoba, also questioned McLachlin's efforts and the choice of Morgentaler for the recipient of the award. "Appointees to the Order of Canada should be seen by a clear majority of Canadians as being noble and beyond reproach. Since this is not the case with Dr. Morgentaler, he should not be considered for our highest civilian award. I find myself now questioning the Order of Canada and its very legitimacy as a voice for all Canadians."
Bruinooge said he is so appalled by the decision that he wishes his name be disassociated from the award. "I recently nominated a deserving citizen in my community, but I no longer feel I can associate with the Order and have asked to have my name disassociated with the nomination process," he said. "I urge Canadians to contact the Governor General and the Order of Canada Selection Committee to express your concern and disappointment with this divisive selection."
The Globe and Mail also reported that Maurice Vellacott, Conservative MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Saskatchewan and Dan McTeague, Liberal MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, Ontario both questioned why a decision would be made that would obviously cause division among Canadians.
"You would think it should be, as it has been in the past, a consensus. This is a pretty divisive issue. I think we can all agree on that. So why would we have the highest honour in the country being issued when there is obviously strong difference of opinion about it? There are so many deserving Canadians, there was no need to choose somebody like Dr. Morgentaler," said Vellacott.
Mcteague said he believes there were ulterior motives behind the divisive decision, stating it is "more of a social statement rather than the usual apolitical decisions. There will be people who cheer what [Morgentaler] has done. There will be others who fundamentally disagree with what he represents."
As quoted by the Globe and Mail, Paul Steckle, Liberal MP for Huron-Bruce, Ontario, said the appointment of Morgentaler debases the Order of Canada: "It diminished in my mind what we think the Order of Canada stands for."
The decision provoked Art Hanger, Conservative MP for Calgary Northeast, Alberta, to attack Canada's current state of legislative limbo on abortion, saying, "I think it's a sorry day when they give that man the Order of Canada. ... He's not deserving of it. What has the man contributed to this nation? Apart from providing a so-called service which I don't believe should be even offered in the nation, but is unfortunately, because we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn."
There are reports that almost 60 Conservative Members of Parliament attached their names to an email to the Prime Minister over the weekend protesting the Order of Canada award to abortionist Morgentaler.
To contact the Governor General's office:
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1
(613) 993-8200
Conservative Leader
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
pm@pm.gc.ca
Say it divides Canadians and debases the Order of Canada
By Tim Waggoner
OTTAWA, July 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canadian Members of Parliament across the nation are condemning the conferral of the country's highest civic award on its most prolific murderer of the unborn.
Numerous MPs are criticizing the decision to give the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler for various reasons, saying the award was given in a controversial and underhanded manner, that the choice of recipient divides rather than unites Canadians and that giving the award to Morgentaler essentially debases the award itself. These same MPs are urging their constituents to immediately contact the Governor General's office (see end of article for contact info) in order to express their disappointment and to urge the Governor General to revoke the award.
Andrew Scheer, Conservative Member of Parliament for Regina-Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, stated, "I am deeply troubled by the announcement that Henry Morgentaler has been awarded the Order of Canada. I am greatly disappointed that Canada's highest civilian honour has been politicized and debased by this appointment."
He continued, saying, "Henry Morgentaler has been a central figure in a very divisive and emotional debate. Far from uniting Canadians with feelings of pride and appreciation, there is a significant portion of the population who will be outraged by this decision. I would urge all Canadians who are dismayed by this appointment to contact the Governor-General and the advisory panel to express their disappointment."
Conservative MP Ken Epp for Sherwood Park, Edmonton, said abortionists have "gone too far." Epp also questioned whether Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, head of the Canadian Supreme Court and the Order of Canada advisory council, who made the decision to give the award to Morgentaler, could legitimately claim legal impartiality on the contentious issue of abortion. McLachlin made the decision despite the fact that the Advisory Council - like Canada - was divided on the issue.
"Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," said Epp.
Rod Bruinooge, Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, Manitoba, also questioned McLachlin's efforts and the choice of Morgentaler for the recipient of the award. "Appointees to the Order of Canada should be seen by a clear majority of Canadians as being noble and beyond reproach. Since this is not the case with Dr. Morgentaler, he should not be considered for our highest civilian award. I find myself now questioning the Order of Canada and its very legitimacy as a voice for all Canadians."
Bruinooge said he is so appalled by the decision that he wishes his name be disassociated from the award. "I recently nominated a deserving citizen in my community, but I no longer feel I can associate with the Order and have asked to have my name disassociated with the nomination process," he said. "I urge Canadians to contact the Governor General and the Order of Canada Selection Committee to express your concern and disappointment with this divisive selection."
The Globe and Mail also reported that Maurice Vellacott, Conservative MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Saskatchewan and Dan McTeague, Liberal MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, Ontario both questioned why a decision would be made that would obviously cause division among Canadians.
"You would think it should be, as it has been in the past, a consensus. This is a pretty divisive issue. I think we can all agree on that. So why would we have the highest honour in the country being issued when there is obviously strong difference of opinion about it? There are so many deserving Canadians, there was no need to choose somebody like Dr. Morgentaler," said Vellacott.
Mcteague said he believes there were ulterior motives behind the divisive decision, stating it is "more of a social statement rather than the usual apolitical decisions. There will be people who cheer what [Morgentaler] has done. There will be others who fundamentally disagree with what he represents."
As quoted by the Globe and Mail, Paul Steckle, Liberal MP for Huron-Bruce, Ontario, said the appointment of Morgentaler debases the Order of Canada: "It diminished in my mind what we think the Order of Canada stands for."
The decision provoked Art Hanger, Conservative MP for Calgary Northeast, Alberta, to attack Canada's current state of legislative limbo on abortion, saying, "I think it's a sorry day when they give that man the Order of Canada. ... He's not deserving of it. What has the man contributed to this nation? Apart from providing a so-called service which I don't believe should be even offered in the nation, but is unfortunately, because we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn."
There are reports that almost 60 Conservative Members of Parliament attached their names to an email to the Prime Minister over the weekend protesting the Order of Canada award to abortionist Morgentaler.
To contact the Governor General's office:
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1
(613) 993-8200
Conservative Leader
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
pm@pm.gc.ca
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Bogus US oaths...color of crayon law!
UNDERSTANDING THE OATH OF OFFICE
Understanding the law(s) and the requirements on the “Oath of Office”. A.k.a; the Office of Public Trust. Why it is important that we understand the required “Oath” and hold those accountable that will infringe on any of the “Bill of Rights”.
All governmental officers, Federal and State officers are only official when they are acting under Art. 6 Sec. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of Amercia.
All official Federal governmental officers are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by Law.
After taking the required oath, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, that person is now an official (federal government). The same person that has taken the required oath is now acting under Color of Law and Color of Office.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No Judge Oath - Judge's Decision Void
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050706VoidDecision.html
Section 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an
individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of
the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if
he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of
government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike,
against the Government of the United States or the government of
the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the
Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the
government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year and a day, or both.
Check your States Constitution and Laws on the Oath of Office
In the State of NEVADA:
All governmental officers: State, City and County are only official when they are acting under THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA: ARTICLE. 15. Sec 2.
State of Constitution for the Nevada: ARTICLE. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec 2. Oath of office.
All NEVADA officials are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 282.020.
Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
In suites against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In suits against federal officers.
CHECK YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."
42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
(1) Preventing officer performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242.
"Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person - or object - related to an officium, v., since the Romans the staff of a high office bearer such as a governor) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working space with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participating in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). An elected official is a person who is an official by virtue of an election; officials may also be appointed, ex officio (i.e. by virtue of another office, often in a specified capacity, such as presiding, advisory, secretary), cooptated, or sometimes hereditary.
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice aforethought is an element of the crime of murder in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"}, R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the Malice Standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil liberties campaign. The Malice Standard decides whether press reports can be considered defamation or libel.
Treason
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation).
"Traitor" redirects here. For other uses, see Traitor (disambiguation)
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.
Infringed / Infringement
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right.
Bill of Rights
n. the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution demanded by several states in return for ratifying the Constitution, since the failure to protect these rights was a glaring omission in the Constitution as adopted in convention in 1787. Adopted and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights are: First: Prohibits laws establishing a religion (separation of church and state), and bans laws which would restrict freedom of religion, speech, press (now interpreted as covering all media), right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Second: A "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Oath of Office
(Read Marbury v. Madison)
To Be (loyal) or not to Be (loyal)
That is the real question
We may be amateur historians, legal professors on Constitutional law, nevertheless, it makes us upset to see our government of today undermining and being disloyal to the Authors principals and intent to an central Government. All Federal and State officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United states." The promise to adhere to the Constitution means to adhere to that and nothing else besides! Divided and diluted patriotism is NOT what the Authors had in mind when they prescribed the basic Oath of Office. (US Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3. REQUIREMENT). An American public servant who trespasses outside the bounds of his/her Oath of Office is being adulterous toward their country. A restrictive activist is loyal and guards with jealous by its very nature. No one can serve two masters or be true to more the one wife. Federalist
Number 10, a thumbnail matter of this:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, form which the rights of property originates, is not less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government”. (Are required to protect and defend the Bill of Rights)
And how falsely they have been in their Oaths of Office to “support and defend the Constitution”! and The Bill of Rights. They have betrayed, mistrust and it is disloyalty. It is crime of perjury, and perjury is a statute by law. Read for yourself:
(U.S. Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3., Oath Of Office REQUIREMENT)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this constitution.
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 23. Presiding officer of Senate may administer oaths
STATUTE
The presiding officer, for the time being, of the Senate of the United States, shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations that are or may be required by the Constitution, or by law, to be taken by any Senator, officer of the Senate, witness, or other person, in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
2 USC Sec. 25
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 25. Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates
STATUTE
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
2 USC Sec. 35
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 3
Sec. 35. Salaries payable monthly after taking oath
STATUTE
Each Member and Delegate, after he has taken and subscribed the required oath, is entitled to receive his salary at the end of each month. (Question; is this the only reason they take this "oath"?)
4 USC Sec. 101
TITLE 4
CHAPTER 4
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
STATUTE
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: 'I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.'
5 USC Sec. 2903
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart A
CHAPTER 29
SUBCHAPTER I
Sec. 2903. Oath; authority to administer
-STATUTE-
(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.
(b) An employee of an Executive agency designated in writing by the head of the Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department with respect to an employee of his department, may administer -
(1) the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, incident to entrance into the executive branch; or
(2) any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch.
(c) An oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States may be administered by -
(1) the Vice President; or
(2) an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United
States where the oath is administered.
*[71 U.S. 333, 334] ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by 'An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,'1 enacted:
'That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
Prescribed oath of July, 1862. During the War between the States
* "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to [71 U.S. 333, 335] persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.* And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;'
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
* Footnote, no longer prescribed in today's oath. This was the fully prescribed oath of July, 1862. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 01/06/97
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
Sec. 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
5 U.S.C. Sec. 8312 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart G - Insurance and Annuities
CHAPTER 83 - RETIREMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
-STATUTE-
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual -
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies -
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based. (2) An offense within the purview of -
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article 104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia -
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of -
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A) of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States; or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee in connection with a matter under inquiry before the congressional committee involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273 (violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275 (receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the annuity or retired pay concerned -
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of this subsection. (2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney, alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to be paid by the department or agency concerned.
Constitution for the State
of Nevada
ARTICLE. 15.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. Carson City seat of government.
2. Oath of office.
3. Eligibility for public office.
4. Perpetuities; eleemosynary purposes.
5. Time of general election.
6. Number of members of legislature limited.
7. County offices at county seats.
8. Publication of general statutes and opinions of supreme court; effective date of opinions of supreme court.
9. Increase or decrease of compensation of officers whose compensation fixed by constitution.
10. Election or appointment of officers.
11. Term of office when not fixed by constitution; limitation; municipal officers and employees.
12. Certain state officers to keep offices at Carson City.
13. Census by legislature and Congress: Basis of representation in houses of legislature.
14. Election by plurality.
15. Merit system governing employment in executive branch of state government.
Section. 1. Carson City seat of government. The seat of Government shall be at Carson City, but no appropriation for the erection or purchase of Capitol buildings shall be made during the next three Years[.]
Section 2. Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Members of county game management boards are public officers and upon appointment are required to take constitutional oath of office. AGO 352 (11-5-1954)
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any
other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint,
deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of
securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or
effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which
is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.140 Use of fictitious name on affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs, or causes to be made, executed or signed, any affidavit, complaint or other instrument, in
writing, before any United States officer or person, or before any state officer or person, authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with
the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods,
chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, and signs the same
by any other name than his or her true name, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.145 Statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury. A person who, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury:
1. Makes a willful and false statement in a matter material to the issue or point in question; or
2. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true, or who suborns another to make in such a declaration a statement of the kind described in subsection 1 or 2, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.150 Attempt to suborn perjury. Every person who, without giving, offering or promising a bribe, shall incite or attempt to procure
another to commit perjury, or to offer any false evidence, or to withhold true testimony, though no perjury be committed or false evidence offered or
true testimony withheld, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 199.160 Procuring the execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury. A person who, by willful and corrupt perjury or
subornation of perjury, procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person is guilty of murder which is a category A felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:
1. For life without the possibility of parole;
2. For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or
3. For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.
NRS 199.170 Oath and swear defined.
1. The term oath shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to swear thereto.
As a nation we are used to seeing “In God We Trust” on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme “truth equals freedom.” and we have heard “Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free.” Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God!
I don't think that God chose us as his people, it's that we chose God. And it will mean and always will mean, so long as we remain a nation, that we Americans have taken God as a foundation for our political philosophy and for our nationalism. And that's why the last four words in the prescribed Oath of Offices says, “so help me God”!
So what can we do? Our goal is to bring our national Government back to the Authors intent. A true Republic form of Constitutional Government. This can only be done with the help of concerned citizens. We must stand together in numbers, then and only then will the national Government listen to what we have to say. “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Public Servants elected to Congress must be held accountable for their actions while in office.
A true American God fearing patriot
Gary W, De Capua / President of the C.R.T.F. / N.N.
Does No mean No?
SEVER ABILITY
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary
adj. Capable of being severed or separated; separable into legally distinct rights or obligations, as a contract. --sev”er?a?bil“i?ty n.
INFRINGE
(a) --tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. --intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: to neglect to obey; as to infringe a law; an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. [Latin ºnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see IN-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- below.] --in?fring“er n.
NO
(b) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. --no n., pl. noes (n½z). 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. [Middle English, from Old English n³ : ne, not; see ne below + ³, ever; see aiw- below.] no2 (n½) adj. 1. Not any; not one; not a: No cookies are left. 2. Not at all; not close to being: He is no child. 3. Hardly any: got there in no time flat.
NOT
(c)adv. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.
SHALL
aux.v. past tense should (sh‹d). 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show: a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come. 2. Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
Severability
Nevada's Law...NRS 0.020
0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.
1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statue or required by the context:
(b) “May not” or “no” abridges or removes a right, privilege or power.
(d) “shall” imposes a duty to act.
(e) “shall not” imposes a prohibition against acting.
Those who are bound by Oath of office with limited delegation of authority must obey and protect it; The Constitution for the united States of America.
A judge has no authority to act until he has taken the oath of office; until he takes the required oath his acts are a nullity, Mancus says, referring to French v. Texas (1978) 572 S.W.2d 934, 939. In that case, a search warrant issued by a judge who had not taken the required oath of office was void and evidence seized under the warrant was inadmissible. Mancus says that Brown v. State (1951) 238 S.W.2d 787, 33, the court held a judge is without authority to act until he takes the oath required by the Constitution.
Why then, does our Government undermine the framers of the Constitution, and those men who fought and lost their lives to protect this great document and country against socialistic tyrants. When Government will not uphold their Oath of office, then they wear the same cloth as those tyrants.. Our Constitution does not give our Government the authority to undermine or rewrite the Constitution for the united States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is to guarantee our protection from capricious, rapacious, incompetent, and uncaring government.
Learn to defend your RIGHTS
This is why we need to make the Oath of Office a relevant issue
Understanding the law(s) and the requirements on the “Oath of Office”. A.k.a; the Office of Public Trust. Why it is important that we understand the required “Oath” and hold those accountable that will infringe on any of the “Bill of Rights”.
All governmental officers, Federal and State officers are only official when they are acting under Art. 6 Sec. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of Amercia.
All official Federal governmental officers are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by Law.
After taking the required oath, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, that person is now an official (federal government). The same person that has taken the required oath is now acting under Color of Law and Color of Office.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No Judge Oath - Judge's Decision Void
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050706VoidDecision.html
Section 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an
individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of
the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if
he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of
government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike,
against the Government of the United States or the government of
the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the
Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the
government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year and a day, or both.
Check your States Constitution and Laws on the Oath of Office
In the State of NEVADA:
All governmental officers: State, City and County are only official when they are acting under THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA: ARTICLE. 15. Sec 2.
State of Constitution for the Nevada: ARTICLE. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec 2. Oath of office.
All NEVADA officials are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 282.020.
Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
In suites against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In suits against federal officers.
CHECK YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."
42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
(1) Preventing officer performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242.
"Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person - or object - related to an officium, v., since the Romans the staff of a high office bearer such as a governor) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working space with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participating in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). An elected official is a person who is an official by virtue of an election; officials may also be appointed, ex officio (i.e. by virtue of another office, often in a specified capacity, such as presiding, advisory, secretary), cooptated, or sometimes hereditary.
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice aforethought is an element of the crime of murder in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"}, R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the Malice Standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil liberties campaign. The Malice Standard decides whether press reports can be considered defamation or libel.
Treason
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation).
"Traitor" redirects here. For other uses, see Traitor (disambiguation)
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.
Infringed / Infringement
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right.
Bill of Rights
n. the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution demanded by several states in return for ratifying the Constitution, since the failure to protect these rights was a glaring omission in the Constitution as adopted in convention in 1787. Adopted and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights are: First: Prohibits laws establishing a religion (separation of church and state), and bans laws which would restrict freedom of religion, speech, press (now interpreted as covering all media), right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Second: A "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Oath of Office
(Read Marbury v. Madison)
To Be (loyal) or not to Be (loyal)
That is the real question
We may be amateur historians, legal professors on Constitutional law, nevertheless, it makes us upset to see our government of today undermining and being disloyal to the Authors principals and intent to an central Government. All Federal and State officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United states." The promise to adhere to the Constitution means to adhere to that and nothing else besides! Divided and diluted patriotism is NOT what the Authors had in mind when they prescribed the basic Oath of Office. (US Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3. REQUIREMENT). An American public servant who trespasses outside the bounds of his/her Oath of Office is being adulterous toward their country. A restrictive activist is loyal and guards with jealous by its very nature. No one can serve two masters or be true to more the one wife. Federalist
Number 10, a thumbnail matter of this:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, form which the rights of property originates, is not less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government”. (Are required to protect and defend the Bill of Rights)
And how falsely they have been in their Oaths of Office to “support and defend the Constitution”! and The Bill of Rights. They have betrayed, mistrust and it is disloyalty. It is crime of perjury, and perjury is a statute by law. Read for yourself:
(U.S. Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3., Oath Of Office REQUIREMENT)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this constitution.
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 23. Presiding officer of Senate may administer oaths
STATUTE
The presiding officer, for the time being, of the Senate of the United States, shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations that are or may be required by the Constitution, or by law, to be taken by any Senator, officer of the Senate, witness, or other person, in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
2 USC Sec. 25
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 25. Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates
STATUTE
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
2 USC Sec. 35
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 3
Sec. 35. Salaries payable monthly after taking oath
STATUTE
Each Member and Delegate, after he has taken and subscribed the required oath, is entitled to receive his salary at the end of each month. (Question; is this the only reason they take this "oath"?)
4 USC Sec. 101
TITLE 4
CHAPTER 4
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
STATUTE
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: 'I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.'
5 USC Sec. 2903
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart A
CHAPTER 29
SUBCHAPTER I
Sec. 2903. Oath; authority to administer
-STATUTE-
(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.
(b) An employee of an Executive agency designated in writing by the head of the Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department with respect to an employee of his department, may administer -
(1) the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, incident to entrance into the executive branch; or
(2) any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch.
(c) An oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States may be administered by -
(1) the Vice President; or
(2) an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United
States where the oath is administered.
*[71 U.S. 333, 334] ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by 'An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,'1 enacted:
'That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
Prescribed oath of July, 1862. During the War between the States
* "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to [71 U.S. 333, 335] persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.* And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;'
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
* Footnote, no longer prescribed in today's oath. This was the fully prescribed oath of July, 1862. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 01/06/97
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
Sec. 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
5 U.S.C. Sec. 8312 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart G - Insurance and Annuities
CHAPTER 83 - RETIREMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
-STATUTE-
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual -
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies -
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based. (2) An offense within the purview of -
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article 104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia -
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of -
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A) of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States; or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee in connection with a matter under inquiry before the congressional committee involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273 (violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275 (receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the annuity or retired pay concerned -
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of this subsection. (2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney, alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to be paid by the department or agency concerned.
Constitution for the State
of Nevada
ARTICLE. 15.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. Carson City seat of government.
2. Oath of office.
3. Eligibility for public office.
4. Perpetuities; eleemosynary purposes.
5. Time of general election.
6. Number of members of legislature limited.
7. County offices at county seats.
8. Publication of general statutes and opinions of supreme court; effective date of opinions of supreme court.
9. Increase or decrease of compensation of officers whose compensation fixed by constitution.
10. Election or appointment of officers.
11. Term of office when not fixed by constitution; limitation; municipal officers and employees.
12. Certain state officers to keep offices at Carson City.
13. Census by legislature and Congress: Basis of representation in houses of legislature.
14. Election by plurality.
15. Merit system governing employment in executive branch of state government.
Section. 1. Carson City seat of government. The seat of Government shall be at Carson City, but no appropriation for the erection or purchase of Capitol buildings shall be made during the next three Years[.]
Section 2. Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Members of county game management boards are public officers and upon appointment are required to take constitutional oath of office. AGO 352 (11-5-1954)
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any
other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint,
deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of
securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or
effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which
is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.140 Use of fictitious name on affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs, or causes to be made, executed or signed, any affidavit, complaint or other instrument, in
writing, before any United States officer or person, or before any state officer or person, authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with
the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods,
chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, and signs the same
by any other name than his or her true name, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.145 Statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury. A person who, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury:
1. Makes a willful and false statement in a matter material to the issue or point in question; or
2. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true, or who suborns another to make in such a declaration a statement of the kind described in subsection 1 or 2, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.150 Attempt to suborn perjury. Every person who, without giving, offering or promising a bribe, shall incite or attempt to procure
another to commit perjury, or to offer any false evidence, or to withhold true testimony, though no perjury be committed or false evidence offered or
true testimony withheld, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 199.160 Procuring the execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury. A person who, by willful and corrupt perjury or
subornation of perjury, procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person is guilty of murder which is a category A felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:
1. For life without the possibility of parole;
2. For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or
3. For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.
NRS 199.170 Oath and swear defined.
1. The term oath shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to swear thereto.
As a nation we are used to seeing “In God We Trust” on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme “truth equals freedom.” and we have heard “Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free.” Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God!
I don't think that God chose us as his people, it's that we chose God. And it will mean and always will mean, so long as we remain a nation, that we Americans have taken God as a foundation for our political philosophy and for our nationalism. And that's why the last four words in the prescribed Oath of Offices says, “so help me God”!
So what can we do? Our goal is to bring our national Government back to the Authors intent. A true Republic form of Constitutional Government. This can only be done with the help of concerned citizens. We must stand together in numbers, then and only then will the national Government listen to what we have to say. “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Public Servants elected to Congress must be held accountable for their actions while in office.
A true American God fearing patriot
Gary W, De Capua / President of the C.R.T.F. / N.N.
Does No mean No?
SEVER ABILITY
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary
adj. Capable of being severed or separated; separable into legally distinct rights or obligations, as a contract. --sev”er?a?bil“i?ty n.
INFRINGE
(a) --tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. --intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: to neglect to obey; as to infringe a law; an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. [Latin ºnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see IN-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- below.] --in?fring“er n.
NO
(b) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. --no n., pl. noes (n½z). 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. [Middle English, from Old English n³ : ne, not; see ne below + ³, ever; see aiw- below.] no2 (n½) adj. 1. Not any; not one; not a: No cookies are left. 2. Not at all; not close to being: He is no child. 3. Hardly any: got there in no time flat.
NOT
(c)adv. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.
SHALL
aux.v. past tense should (sh‹d). 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show: a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come. 2. Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
Severability
Nevada's Law...NRS 0.020
0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.
1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statue or required by the context:
(b) “May not” or “no” abridges or removes a right, privilege or power.
(d) “shall” imposes a duty to act.
(e) “shall not” imposes a prohibition against acting.
Those who are bound by Oath of office with limited delegation of authority must obey and protect it; The Constitution for the united States of America.
A judge has no authority to act until he has taken the oath of office; until he takes the required oath his acts are a nullity, Mancus says, referring to French v. Texas (1978) 572 S.W.2d 934, 939. In that case, a search warrant issued by a judge who had not taken the required oath of office was void and evidence seized under the warrant was inadmissible. Mancus says that Brown v. State (1951) 238 S.W.2d 787, 33, the court held a judge is without authority to act until he takes the oath required by the Constitution.
Why then, does our Government undermine the framers of the Constitution, and those men who fought and lost their lives to protect this great document and country against socialistic tyrants. When Government will not uphold their Oath of office, then they wear the same cloth as those tyrants.. Our Constitution does not give our Government the authority to undermine or rewrite the Constitution for the united States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is to guarantee our protection from capricious, rapacious, incompetent, and uncaring government.
Learn to defend your RIGHTS
This is why we need to make the Oath of Office a relevant issue
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Crown..dead or alive???
This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Canada
Executive (The Crown)[show]
Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II)
Governor General of Canada (Michaëlle Jean)
Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Prime Minister (Stephen Harper)
Cabinet (Twenty-Eighth Ministry)
Ministries
President of the Queen's Privy Council
Privy Council Office
Clerk of the Privy Council
Government of Canada
Legislative (Parliament)[show]
Current Parliament (39th)
Senate
Speaker of the Senate
Government Leader in the Senate
Opposition Leader in the Senate
Canadian Senate divisions
House of Commons
Speaker of the House
Government House Leader
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Leader of the Opposition
Opposition House Leader
Shadow Cabinet
Throughout the Commonwealth realms The Crown is an abstract metonymic concept which represents the legal authority for the existence of any government. It evolved naturally as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch.
Similar concepts of "The Crown" also operate in other constitutional monarchies, in which (like the United Kingdom) the monarch is Head of State, but the actual governing of the nation is conducted according to the wishes of a democratically elected national legislature. The Holy Crown of Hungary is an example that similar concepts (although in symbolic rather than legal contexts) can survive even in a republic.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Description
* 2 United Kingdom
o 2.1 Crown dependencies
* 3 Other Commonwealth realms
* 4 Crown Servants
* 5 Origins
* 6 Exercise of the Rights of the Crown
* 7 In the courts
* 8 Powers of the Crown
* 9 See also
[edit] Description
The Crown itself is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of the Executive Government. The real crowns (such as Britain's Crown Jewels and the Honours of Scotland) are the property of the Crown, not of the incumbent personally.
Like any corporation, the Crown is an artificial person (in this case, coextensive with a natural person) which can own property and has certain rights as provided by law to business entities. In the case of Commonwealth realms, the rights and powers of the Crown vary from state to state, because each national or state Crown is a separate corporation sole.
The Crown, as presented in the person of the Sovereign who holds the corporation sole, is the legal authority for the existence and operations of the government in each Commonwealth realm (including Australian states and Canadian provinces).
Most operations of the Crown are directed by Ministers of each of the democratically elected national parliaments (including Canadian provincial and Australian state parliaments).
Exceptions include ceremonial operations carried out by the sovereign personally, and the so-called Reserve Powers of the Crown, the parameters of which are established by the constitution of each Commonwealth realm, such as the granting of Royal Assent by the Crown in Parliament to legislative acts, and the formal invitation to form a government. In general, they are exercised by the Monarch directly or by a vice-regal representative (such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor), to ensure that the elected government follows the rules of the national constitution.
For example the Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was displeased with the results of a general election, including the loss of his own seat, he immediately asked Governor-General Byng to call a new election which the Governor-General refused to do; for further details, see King-Byng Affair.
[edit] United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, as an example, The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is an entity that represents all rulership in the UK, but is separate from the person currently wearing it. For instance, the Queen owns some of her castles herself, such as Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle, and if she abdicated she would keep them. Others, including Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and Holyrood Palace, belong to the Crown, and would pass on to the next monarch, whoever that would be.
[edit] Crown dependencies
The Crown dependencies are held in Right of the United Kingdom, and the Queen's British ministers have the right to advise her on actions in the dependencies, not their insular ministers.
Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures.
[edit] Other Commonwealth realms
The Crown in each of the Commonwealth realms is a similar but separate legal concept.
Both Canada and Australia are federations: therefore, besides the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, there are Crowns in Right of each Canadian province and each Australian state. For example, there is the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia. The rights which the Crown possesses in right of a Canadian province are exercised by the province's lieutenant-governor (e.g., the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia), not the Governor-General of Canada, and such rights are exercised under the advice of the provincial ministers (not the federal ministers). The situation in Australia is analogous with governors and state ministers instead of the Canadian equivalents.
[edit] Crown Servants
Many government workers in the United Kingdom are Crown Servants. The Crown takes responsibility for upholding the Queen's peace, and traditionally prison warders and police officers were directly employed by the Crown, and not by the Prison Service or Police Authorities. In a related way, there is the Crown Prosecution Service in the criminal courts whose lawyers are called Crown Prosecutors. Those working within the intelligence services such as MI5 and MI6 are also Crown Servants. Crown Servants may not sit as Members of Parliament and this is used as a way of allowing MPs to retire before their time—they are awarded a sinecure job as a Crown Servant and thus disbarred as an MP (see resignation from the British House of Commons). The Crown is also the source of all justice in the UK, which meant that it was immune from prosecution until the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary court claims in contract and tort as for any other person.
[edit] Origins
The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system, evolving from and synthesising oriental and barbarian concepts of kingship. Under the feudal system, in England and (separately) Scotland, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the ruler (though this was not the case in all countries that had this system). All land was granted by the Crown to lords, in exchange for feudal services, and they in turn granted the land to lesser lords. One exception to this was common socage—owners of land held as socage held it subject only to the Crown. The Crown as ultimate owner of all property also owns any property which has become bona vacantia.
[edit] Exercise of the Rights of the Crown
In Commonwealth law, the expression "Crown in Right of ..." is often used: e.g., the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales, etc.
In practice, the powers of the Crown outside the United Kingdom are rarely exercised by the Monarch directly, but rather by a local vice-regal representative such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, on the advice of the ministers of the appropriate local (federal/national, state or provincial) government. In those few cases where the Monarch exercises powers directly, she again generally does so on the advice of the ministers of that government.
[edit] In the courts
In criminal proceedings, the prosecuting party is the Crown; generally speaking, this is indicated by having Rex (for a male monarch) or Regina (for a female one) v. the defendant as the standard for naming criminal trials; in Australia particularly, on official transcripts of criminal trials the heading page reads "(name of defendant) v. The Queen". Rex and Regina are typically abbreviated R , for example a criminal case against Smith might be R v Smith, read "Crown and Smith".
This practice of using the seat of sovereignty as the injured party is analogous with criminal cases in the United States, where the format is ["the people" or "the State"] v. [the defendant] (e.g. People of the State of New York v. LaValle or State ex rel TLO) per popular sovereignty.
The Crown can also be a plaintiff or defendant in civil actions to which the government of the Commonwealth Realm in question is a party. Such Crown proceedings are often subject to specific rules and limitations, for example about the way judgments against the Crown can be enforced.
Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
[edit] Powers of the Crown
The powers which belong to each Crown in right of a particular realm can only be exercised on the advice of the ministers of the realm. So, for example, the rights which the Crown possesses in right of the United Kingdom can only be exercised under the advice of British ministers, and the rights which the Crown possesses in right of Canada can only be exercised under the advice of Canadian ministers. The British prime minister cannot advise Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to Canada, nor can the Canadian prime minister advise her in exercise of her rights in regard to the United Kingdom. This applies also to various governments of a federation, so the ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia may not advise the Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to the state of Victoria, for instance, in the appointment of a state Governor.
The monarch, or her appointed representative, has the legal right to refuse the advice of ministers, and act instead in accordance with her personal views. However, these "reserve powers" are almost never used, outside of times of constitutional crisis.
Politics and government of
Canada
Executive (The Crown)[show]
Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II)
Governor General of Canada (Michaëlle Jean)
Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Prime Minister (Stephen Harper)
Cabinet (Twenty-Eighth Ministry)
Ministries
President of the Queen's Privy Council
Privy Council Office
Clerk of the Privy Council
Government of Canada
Legislative (Parliament)[show]
Current Parliament (39th)
Senate
Speaker of the Senate
Government Leader in the Senate
Opposition Leader in the Senate
Canadian Senate divisions
House of Commons
Speaker of the House
Government House Leader
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Leader of the Opposition
Opposition House Leader
Shadow Cabinet
Throughout the Commonwealth realms The Crown is an abstract metonymic concept which represents the legal authority for the existence of any government. It evolved naturally as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation-state from the person and personal property of the monarch.
Similar concepts of "The Crown" also operate in other constitutional monarchies, in which (like the United Kingdom) the monarch is Head of State, but the actual governing of the nation is conducted according to the wishes of a democratically elected national legislature. The Holy Crown of Hungary is an example that similar concepts (although in symbolic rather than legal contexts) can survive even in a republic.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Description
* 2 United Kingdom
o 2.1 Crown dependencies
* 3 Other Commonwealth realms
* 4 Crown Servants
* 5 Origins
* 6 Exercise of the Rights of the Crown
* 7 In the courts
* 8 Powers of the Crown
* 9 See also
[edit] Description
The Crown itself is a corporation sole that represents the legal embodiment of the Executive Government. The real crowns (such as Britain's Crown Jewels and the Honours of Scotland) are the property of the Crown, not of the incumbent personally.
Like any corporation, the Crown is an artificial person (in this case, coextensive with a natural person) which can own property and has certain rights as provided by law to business entities. In the case of Commonwealth realms, the rights and powers of the Crown vary from state to state, because each national or state Crown is a separate corporation sole.
The Crown, as presented in the person of the Sovereign who holds the corporation sole, is the legal authority for the existence and operations of the government in each Commonwealth realm (including Australian states and Canadian provinces).
Most operations of the Crown are directed by Ministers of each of the democratically elected national parliaments (including Canadian provincial and Australian state parliaments).
Exceptions include ceremonial operations carried out by the sovereign personally, and the so-called Reserve Powers of the Crown, the parameters of which are established by the constitution of each Commonwealth realm, such as the granting of Royal Assent by the Crown in Parliament to legislative acts, and the formal invitation to form a government. In general, they are exercised by the Monarch directly or by a vice-regal representative (such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant-Governor), to ensure that the elected government follows the rules of the national constitution.
For example the Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King was displeased with the results of a general election, including the loss of his own seat, he immediately asked Governor-General Byng to call a new election which the Governor-General refused to do; for further details, see King-Byng Affair.
[edit] United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, as an example, The Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is an entity that represents all rulership in the UK, but is separate from the person currently wearing it. For instance, the Queen owns some of her castles herself, such as Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle, and if she abdicated she would keep them. Others, including Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and Holyrood Palace, belong to the Crown, and would pass on to the next monarch, whoever that would be.
[edit] Crown dependencies
The Crown dependencies are held in Right of the United Kingdom, and the Queen's British ministers have the right to advise her on actions in the dependencies, not their insular ministers.
Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures.
[edit] Other Commonwealth realms
The Crown in each of the Commonwealth realms is a similar but separate legal concept.
Both Canada and Australia are federations: therefore, besides the Crown in Right of Canada and the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, there are Crowns in Right of each Canadian province and each Australian state. For example, there is the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia. The rights which the Crown possesses in right of a Canadian province are exercised by the province's lieutenant-governor (e.g., the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia), not the Governor-General of Canada, and such rights are exercised under the advice of the provincial ministers (not the federal ministers). The situation in Australia is analogous with governors and state ministers instead of the Canadian equivalents.
[edit] Crown Servants
Many government workers in the United Kingdom are Crown Servants. The Crown takes responsibility for upholding the Queen's peace, and traditionally prison warders and police officers were directly employed by the Crown, and not by the Prison Service or Police Authorities. In a related way, there is the Crown Prosecution Service in the criminal courts whose lawyers are called Crown Prosecutors. Those working within the intelligence services such as MI5 and MI6 are also Crown Servants. Crown Servants may not sit as Members of Parliament and this is used as a way of allowing MPs to retire before their time—they are awarded a sinecure job as a Crown Servant and thus disbarred as an MP (see resignation from the British House of Commons). The Crown is also the source of all justice in the UK, which meant that it was immune from prosecution until the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 opened the Crown to ordinary court claims in contract and tort as for any other person.
[edit] Origins
The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system, evolving from and synthesising oriental and barbarian concepts of kingship. Under the feudal system, in England and (separately) Scotland, all rights and privileges were ultimately granted by the ruler (though this was not the case in all countries that had this system). All land was granted by the Crown to lords, in exchange for feudal services, and they in turn granted the land to lesser lords. One exception to this was common socage—owners of land held as socage held it subject only to the Crown. The Crown as ultimate owner of all property also owns any property which has become bona vacantia.
[edit] Exercise of the Rights of the Crown
In Commonwealth law, the expression "Crown in Right of ..." is often used: e.g., the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Crown in Right of the State of New South Wales, etc.
In practice, the powers of the Crown outside the United Kingdom are rarely exercised by the Monarch directly, but rather by a local vice-regal representative such as a Governor-General, Governor, or Lieutenant Governor, on the advice of the ministers of the appropriate local (federal/national, state or provincial) government. In those few cases where the Monarch exercises powers directly, she again generally does so on the advice of the ministers of that government.
[edit] In the courts
In criminal proceedings, the prosecuting party is the Crown; generally speaking, this is indicated by having Rex (for a male monarch) or Regina (for a female one) v. the defendant as the standard for naming criminal trials; in Australia particularly, on official transcripts of criminal trials the heading page reads "(name of defendant) v. The Queen". Rex and Regina are typically abbreviated R , for example a criminal case against Smith might be R v Smith, read "Crown and Smith".
This practice of using the seat of sovereignty as the injured party is analogous with criminal cases in the United States, where the format is ["the people" or "the State"] v. [the defendant] (e.g. People of the State of New York v. LaValle or State ex rel TLO) per popular sovereignty.
The Crown can also be a plaintiff or defendant in civil actions to which the government of the Commonwealth Realm in question is a party. Such Crown proceedings are often subject to specific rules and limitations, for example about the way judgments against the Crown can be enforced.
Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
[edit] Powers of the Crown
The powers which belong to each Crown in right of a particular realm can only be exercised on the advice of the ministers of the realm. So, for example, the rights which the Crown possesses in right of the United Kingdom can only be exercised under the advice of British ministers, and the rights which the Crown possesses in right of Canada can only be exercised under the advice of Canadian ministers. The British prime minister cannot advise Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to Canada, nor can the Canadian prime minister advise her in exercise of her rights in regard to the United Kingdom. This applies also to various governments of a federation, so the ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia may not advise the Her Majesty in exercise of her rights in regard to the state of Victoria, for instance, in the appointment of a state Governor.
The monarch, or her appointed representative, has the legal right to refuse the advice of ministers, and act instead in accordance with her personal views. However, these "reserve powers" are almost never used, outside of times of constitutional crisis.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
BC for sale??? Creditors tell debtors what to do!
May 9, 2008
The Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands
PO Box 9043, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Via Email: pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca
Dear Minister Bell:
Re: Section 32, Bill 43 – Expropriation Without Compensation
It is with grave concern that we write to you about Section 32 of Bill 43, which purports to legislate expropriation of property by government without compensation.
While the press release accompanying the Bill says this measure is to apply only to crown land, the proposed legislation itself contains no such qualification or limitation in its scope. It is therefore capable of being applied to the expropriation of any property.
The ownership of property is the bedrock of our legal system. Confidence in that ownership and in the integrity of our courts to protect it, and our government to respect it, is central to the rule of law in our society. It is what distinguishes us from totalitarian regimes.
Any doubt by the business community, or by domestic or international investors that their property rights are inviolate in British Columbia, will have a crippling impact on the economic development of our province.
Even if this measure is intended to apply only to crown land, it also captures all private interests in crown land, which is what attracts and drives the development of crown land. Investors in our province must be able to rely on the government grants and contracts that give them these private property interests in crown land or they will take their investments elsewhere.
Mr. Minister, The Vancouver Board of Trade urges you to immediately remove this clause from the Bill.
Sincerely,
Henry K.S. Lee
Chairman and Chief Elected Officer
/jf
cc. The Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, Government of British Columbia
The Honourable Carole Taylor, Minister of Finance
The Honourable Wally Oppal, Attorney General
The Honourable Colin Hansen, Minister of Economic Development
The Honourable John van Dongen, Solicitor General
The Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands
PO Box 9043, STN PROV GOVT
Victoria, BC V8W 9E2
Via Email: pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca
Dear Minister Bell:
Re: Section 32, Bill 43 – Expropriation Without Compensation
It is with grave concern that we write to you about Section 32 of Bill 43, which purports to legislate expropriation of property by government without compensation.
While the press release accompanying the Bill says this measure is to apply only to crown land, the proposed legislation itself contains no such qualification or limitation in its scope. It is therefore capable of being applied to the expropriation of any property.
The ownership of property is the bedrock of our legal system. Confidence in that ownership and in the integrity of our courts to protect it, and our government to respect it, is central to the rule of law in our society. It is what distinguishes us from totalitarian regimes.
Any doubt by the business community, or by domestic or international investors that their property rights are inviolate in British Columbia, will have a crippling impact on the economic development of our province.
Even if this measure is intended to apply only to crown land, it also captures all private interests in crown land, which is what attracts and drives the development of crown land. Investors in our province must be able to rely on the government grants and contracts that give them these private property interests in crown land or they will take their investments elsewhere.
Mr. Minister, The Vancouver Board of Trade urges you to immediately remove this clause from the Bill.
Sincerely,
Henry K.S. Lee
Chairman and Chief Elected Officer
/jf
cc. The Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, Government of British Columbia
The Honourable Carole Taylor, Minister of Finance
The Honourable Wally Oppal, Attorney General
The Honourable Colin Hansen, Minister of Economic Development
The Honourable John van Dongen, Solicitor General
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)