Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 05-30-2006 3:11 PM by RickInNoCal. 17 replies.
  • 05-24-2006 11:12 PM

    Question [=?] Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    Ohio,

    This is reguards to message 9819

    I found this site about Jurisdiction: http://www.freedomsite.net/juris.htm

    I also found something that I'm not quite sure how to take.

    I was told that Cops, Drug Agents, Prosecutors and Judges have to take an oath and get a bond. If they don't, they are not "legally" allowed to do there job. I

    was told that Judges would have No Jurisdiction to hear the case, if they weren't bonded or didn't take the oath. Is this correct?

    On demand, they must present documentation about there oath and bond, correct?

    What happens if a judge doesn't have a bond but passed sentence on a person? Can the person have it overturned or dismissed on appeal?

    I am under the impression that the state may bond judges, but I am unsure?

    I appreciate any input.

    Thanks for all your help,

    I_VOTE_NOT_GUILTY
  • 05-25-2006 12:18 AM In reply to

    • CdwJava
      Consumer
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-20-2003
    • CA
    • Posts 910

    Feedback [*=*] re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    This is one of those bizarre "hail Mary" passes that some of the whacko fringe types pull out of their hats when they are reaching for a way out. It has been tried before and failed.

    Heck, some of these guys that say that police officers are not real law enforcement and that only the elected Sheriff and his deputies have the legal ability enforce the law!

    These fringe folks are good for entertainment ... but, when you consider they actually believe this tripe, it's kinda scary.

    Don't buy it.

    Also, while I may not be an attorney, I can see several things wrong with these seven "elements" that must be proven to show jurisdiction.

    - Carl
  • 05-25-2006 1:34 AM In reply to

    Agree [=|=] re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    This is from the same group of people that don't think they have to pay taxes, have driver's licenses or register their vehicles with the state. Oh, and let's not forget the argument that the court isn't a court when the flag has gold fringe on it. They often insist on representing themselves arguing that the court doesn't have jurisdiction...all the way to their jail cells. They are a danger to themselves and their philosopy of justice has no basis in law and is best ignored in favor of the advice of licensed counsel.
  • 05-25-2006 2:32 AM In reply to

    News [|*|] LOL--Do not believe everything you read on the net.

    The internet makes it very easy for anyone to put anything out there for the world to see. That provides great opportunities for anwone to get almost any information easily. IMO, this acheivement is the most significant since the invention of the printing press in helping to disseminate information to a wide audience.

    But the material put on net is not screened by any authority for accuracy, so it is important for everyone to be wary of what they read and verify what they find out from any unknown site with a trusted source of information.

    I am a tax attorney and have a great deal of experience with tax cases, including cases involving tax protestors. The link you provided was to one such tax protest site. Every time I read the material groups like this put out, I have to laugh. The number of legal errors and faulty conclusions in that piece are truly staggering. As just one example, the article consistently refers to the IRS as the agency prosecuting the case. But that is not accurate. Tax evasion, like any other federal crime, is prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. More significantly, the article makes the claim that if someone is not a “taxpayer” a court would lack juridiction over the prosecution of the alleged crime. That is simply wrong. A federal district court has jurisdiction to hear prosecutions of alleged federal crimes, including tax evasion. The issue of whether someone is subject to income tax (i.e. a taxpayer) is an issue that the defendant might raise at trial, but it is not a jurisdictional matter. The sad part is that there are people out there who read this stuff and believe it. Then are confused when the tactics suggested by these tax protest groups fail to work and they get hit with large penalties and, in some cases, are prosecuted and convicted of tax evasion.

    Should you ever face prosecution in a federal court for tax evasion (or any other charges), do not rely on the information on that site. Doing so is practically an invitation to go to prison.
  • 05-25-2006 7:18 PM In reply to

    re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    "I was told that Cops, Drug Agents, Prosecutors and Judges have to take an oath and get a bond. If they don't, they are not "legally" allowed to do there job."

    You were told by whom?

    "I was told that Judges would have No Jurisdiction to hear the case, if they weren't bonded or didn't take the oath. Is this correct?"

    Not in the least.

    "On demand, they must present documentation about there oath and bond, correct?"

    Wrong again.

    If you're getting information from the same sorts of people who post about being "tax protesters," please find yourself a non-delusional source of legal info.
  • 05-25-2006 8:33 PM In reply to

    Question [=?] re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    I think I found a non-delusional source. The constitutional oath of office

    I am not defending anything, I'm just showing you what I've found.

    That site, I'm unsure of. The following is law, from what I know.

    "Each person chosen or appointed to an office under the constitution or laws of this state, and each deputy or clerk of such officer, shall take an oath of office before entering upon the discharge of his duties."

    I don't know if all states do this, but I think the constitution requires it. Again, I'm not sure: What do you think after reading this? ...

    The constitutional oath of office is important enough that the first official act of Congress in 1789 set requirements for the oath in place. See I State. 23. The Constitution of the United States mandates a constitutional oath of office in Article V1, Clause 3. The requirement for civil commissions is in Article 11 § 2 of the Constitution. Requirements for civil commissions were particularized in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed, 60, 1 Cranch 13 7 (1803), and United States v. Le Baron, 60 U. S. 73 (1856). Requirements for surety bonds arise from common law doctrine and statutory law. See particularly, 26 U.S.C.§ 6803, 7101, 7102, & 7485, 26 CFR § 301 7101 1 & 301 7102 1 and 31 U.S.C.§ 9303

    OHIO REVISED CODE
    § 3.30. Failure to give bond deemed refusal of office.
    A person elected or appointed to an office who is required by law to give a bond or security previous to the performance of the duties imposed on him by his office, who refuses or neglects to give such bond or furnish such security within the time and in the manner prescribed by law, and in all respects to qualify himself for the performance of such duties, is deemed to have refused to accept the office to which he was elected or appointed. Such office shall be considered vacant and shall be filled as provided by law.
    HISTORY: RS § 19; S&C 888; 29 v 407, § 4; GC § 7; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.


    § 3.3 1. Sufficiency of bonds of state officials.
    A bond payable to the state, or other payee as directed by law, reciting the election or appointment of a person to an office or public trust under or 'in pursuance of the constitution or laws of this state, and conditioned for the faithful performance, by such person, of the duties of the office or trust, is sufficient, notwithstanding any special provision made by law for the condition of such bond.
    HISTORY: Revised Statutes of 1880; GC § 6; 110 v 128; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.


    § 3.32. Premium of bond of state official paid by state.
    'If an elective or appointive state officer is required by law to furnish bond, a surety company bond may be given and the annual premium in such cases shall be paid from the funds appropriated by the general assembly to the various departments, boards, and commissions for such purpose. This section does not prevent the giving of a personal bond with sureties approved by the officials authorized by law to give such approval.
    HISTORY: Revised Statutes of 1880; GC § 6; 110 v 128; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.

    § 3.33. Depositaries of official bonds must record them.
    Every officer, on receiving an official bond which by law is required to be filed or deposited with him, shall record it in a book to be kept by him for that purpose. A certified transcript of the record of such bond is conclusive evidence of such record, and prima facie evidence of the execution and existence of such bond.
    HISTORY: RS § 5; S&C 192; 41 v 13; GC § 4; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.

    § 3.34. Bonds signed in blank.
    All official bonds; bonds of executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees; bonds required or authorized to be taken by or before a court, judge, or public board or officer, Judicial or ministerial , bonds of indemnity; and all other bonds conditioned to become void upon the performance by any of the parties thereto of the stipulations contained in such bonds shall bind and render liable thereon both principals and sureties, whether at the time of the signing of the bonds by any of such obligors the amounts of such bonds are filled in or left in blank, if such amounts are filled in before or at the time of the approval or acceptance of such bonds. Such filling in may be done in the absence of any of the obligors, and without any express authority for that purpose from any of them.
    HISTORY: RS § 6; 66 v 15; 80 v 79; GC § 5; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 101 53.

    § 3.22. All officers must take oath of office.
    Each person chosen or appointed to an office under the constitution or laws of this state, and each deputy or clerk of such officer, shall take an oath of office before entering upon the discharge of his duties. The failure to take such oath shall not affect his liability or the liability of his sureties.
    HISTORY: Revised Statutes of 1880; See also Sayler, 2197; GC § 2; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.

    § 3.23. Oath of office of judges and other officers.
    The oath of office of each judge of a court of record shall be to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, to administer justice without respect to persons, and faithfully and impartially to discharge. and perform all the duties incumbent on him as such judge, according to the best of his ability and understanding. The oath of office of every other officer, deputy, or clerk shall be to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their office.
    HISTORY: RS § 3; S&C 381; 50 v 67, § 19; GC § 3; Bureau of Code Revision. Eff 10 1 53.

    There's more but I don't want to fill the page. I'm working on getting it up on the net. What is your opinion on the information?

    If what I posted is correct, then they would be illegally passing sentence, if they didn't take an oath or have a bond, correct?

    And assuming they don't have a bond, then I can bring this issue up on appeal, correct?

    I don't mean to be persistant and go against what was posted but from what I am reading, they are required to have a bond. I'll post the whole document and let you read it.

    I am going to be filing a Praecipe for PRAECIPE
    NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO
    PRINCIPAL
    NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO
    AGENT

    DEMAND OF OFFICIAL OATH AND BONDS
    Request under the State Freedom of Information Act [ F0IA ] US 522 And under O.R.C. 149.43

    I don't know how this is all going to turn out... It seems legal to question their requirements! Let me know what you think.

    I_VOTE_NOT_GUILTY


  • 05-26-2006 12:25 AM In reply to

    re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    Yes, public officials take oaths. I doubt that any failure to take an oath would have any legal effect vis-a-vis any action taken by an official who failed to take the oath. That would be silly and would exalt form over substance. As for a bond, there was lots of stuff in there about what happens IF a bond is required. I didn't see anything in there requiring anyone actually to post a bond.
  • 05-26-2006 10:56 AM In reply to

    Feedback [*=*] re: Jurisdiction Update + No Bond And Oath ???

    "And assuming they don't have a bond, then I can bring this issue up on appeal, correct?"

    Not unless you raise it in the lower court, normally.

    "Let me know what you think."

    I think you are going to piss some people off.

    Every judge takes his oath when sworn into his office, being sworn by another judge. Those are ceremonies which lots of people attend.

    I suspect a state legislature cannot impose a bond requirement upon a judge, because of separation of powers.

    You're also assuming that an official without a bond is automatically something like void. I doubt that's the case.
  • 05-26-2006 12:52 PM In reply to

    Feedback [*=*] Praecipe for Bond And Oath !

    Praecipe Demand On Oaths and Bonds

    You are hereby respectfully ordered and commanded by the Great Writ of Praecipe to perform a lawful function that your office requires you to do and is simultaneously required by your oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of Ohio, which makes it a crime for a public official to be in dereliction of his duty and Interfering With Civil Rights. This may cause a vacancy of the office. You are hereby respectfully commanded to take immediate action in regards to this request. However, if I am mistaken please inform me as to what office in government would be most efficient in effectuating a remedy to the victim of this type of act. Please contact me upon receipt of this instrument in the event that I must also make official reports on your own existing forms to assure your performance in this matter.
    This praecipe is made as a prerequisite to filing a Writ of Mandamus to compel your performance in the event you fail to act in a manner prescribed by law. This praecipe is an exhaustion of all statutory and administrative remedies prior to compelling your performance by an extraordinary writ.
    I only make this praecipe in that the hope to have my God given right to enjoy and be able to better our lives, which I have been deprived of by Fraud and Deception.
    Under O.R.C 149.43 and US 522 [ F.O.I.A.] when a request is made, I understand that your office has a reasonable time to respond, but in this case a PRAECIPE has been given to your office under O.R.C 3.30, and any agent's appointed or elected must have an Oath of office and cover their Oath with a bond to uphold their Oath.

    Under this request since then, I want a copy of the Oath and Bond of all Agents of County of Medina in the damaging of Me, I_VOTE_NOT_GUILTY and family,

    Then I list names ...

    (there is a lot more and I state laws and requirements and case law.

    Then I serve them and file it in court (and probably piss them off)

    When I get the whole thing up on the net, I'll post the link.

    Thanks

    I_VOTE_NOT_GUILTY
  • 05-26-2006 1:47 PM In reply to

    re: Praecipe for Bond And Oath !

    And risk going to prison for threatening a judge...I would suggest you consult a local attorney since you are clearly buying into the constitutionalist credo which has landed many behind bars because they refuse to listen to reality.
  • 05-26-2006 1:55 PM In reply to

    Disagree [)*(] There's a reason that attorneys don't do this stuff . . .

    It doesn't work.

    WRIT OF PRAECIPE - This writ is also called a writ of covenant, and is sued out by the party to whom lands are to be conveyed by fine; the foundation of which is a supposed agreement or covenant that the one shall convey the land to the other.

    What in the heck does your criminal law action have to do with real property?
  • 05-26-2006 1:57 PM In reply to

    News [|*|] You're also ignoring . . .

    that the common law is NOT in play where state law has abolished it. Many writs and such that were available at common law are prohibited by state law.
  • 05-26-2006 10:03 PM In reply to

    Question [=?] You're also ignoring the laws I stated

    "And risk going to prison for threatening a judge..." "I would suggest you consult a local attorney since you are clearly buying into the constitutionalist credo which has landed many behind bars because they refuse to listen to reality."

    I don't want to talk about ALL the Constitutional Violations that go on inside our court rooms, or the patriots who stand up for Constitutional values that are hushed by a prison term. I know what Judges can do and they can go directly against the Constitution and the appeals Court will usually put a Rubber stamp on the verdict as A.O.K., and if you don't have enough money to take it to the State Supreme Court, it stands as case law! I know the system...

    I am not threatening anyone, if State Law allows me to ask for his credentials, I am going to ask. Where did I threaten anyone? I think I only stated law and asked for what I have a right to ask for?

    No-one has answered my question: Does a Judge have to be bonded?

    " WRIT OF PRAECIPE - This writ is also called a writ of covenant, and is sued out by the party to whom lands are to be conveyed by fine; the foundation of which is a supposed agreement or covenant that the one shall convey the land to the other."

    A WRIT OF PRAECIPE : So, you are saying that this writ of praecipe is only for transfering of land? It can't be used for something else, like getting information? And if that was the case, I should just change the name and put it in as a motion... Correct? Or serve them under the Freedom of Information Act, which i have a right to do.

    "What in the heck does your criminal law action have to do with real property?"

    Nothing, I am looking for a technicality that may exist. If the Judge is required to have a bond and doesn't, and State law says that if he doesn't have a bond, he is not an administrator, I would call that a Technicality.

    By the way, it's not my case, I'm just doing research and someone else has this case and is thinking of filing this motion (or I will because I have the Power of Attorney), providing what I learn here. He wants me to file this and serve them but I'm doing research before I do anything.

    Good Point! "That the common law is NOT in play where state law has abolished it. Many writs and such that were available at common law are prohibited by state law." Thanks...

    State law allows us to question credentials of administrators, From what I have learned so far.

    Question: If a Judge does not have the requirements that are stated in State law (that they should have), would their judgement or sentence stand?

    And if so, Why?

    I have many questions, I'm just looking for the answers.

    Thanks for the statements, I look forward to answers...

    I_VOTE_NOT_GUILTY
  • 05-26-2006 10:42 PM In reply to

    Disagree [)*(] You need a reality check

    --Does a Judge have to be bonded?

    No, a judge does not have to be bonded. He also has immunity for any action he takes while wearing the robe so he can't be sued if he made a mistake. The proper avenue is to appeal whatever action the judge took that is disagreed with, NOT trying to after the judge. AND outside of inefective assistance of counsel, any issue not raised at the trial level is pretty much waived for purposes of appeal.

    --By the way, it's not my case,

    Then you don't have standing to bring any motions and you can't just file writs willy-nilly because you think you want to. Writs are asking a higher court to command a lower courtl. The operative word is court--not judge.

    --filing this motion (or I will because I have the Power of Attorney),

    Then you will find yourself in the cell next to your friend. A POA does NOT confer upon you the power to represent another person in a criminal action AND you could run afoul of the UPL statutes just by preparing the paperwork.

  • 05-28-2006 8:07 PM In reply to

    Some offices 'used' to require a bond

    In the early days of the nation, when there were no wire transfers, internet banking, or even an effective national bank, there were certain government offices that involved their holders collecting and holding on behalf of the government large sums of cash.

    The regulations for the appointment of persons to those offices allowed for the appointee to be required to post a bond so that if he absconded with the cash he'd collected, the government wouldn't be out of pocket.

    All the laws you quoted referred to the rules for collecting and holding such bonds IF they were required. There's never been any law requiring ALL office holders to post bonds - in fact the bond requirements were only ever required for a very small number of officers - Indian land agents and Cavalry mount agents were examples.

    So far as I could find, neither judges nor any law enforcement agents were ever jobs that were required to be bonded.

    Richard
Page 1 of 2 (18 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community