Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Wikileaks / Cablegate / State Secrets (06/21/11) cablegate-201106211024.7z.torrent | Main | Liberty News from BreakTheMatrix.com »

Our experiences discovering valid Oaths of Office of State & US judges, with links to the most relevant records in the Supreme Law Library

Subject:
our experiences discovering valid Oaths of Office of State & US judges,
w/ links to the most relevant records in the Supreme Law Library


>  I wish that you could summarize in 1-2 pages,
>  aimed at the general reader (minimal legalese)
>  your experiences relative to efforts to discover
>  valid records of Oaths of Office of State and US judges,
>  with links to the most relevant records on your web archive.


Dear Dr. Joseph Zernik and Friends,

All Federal Judges and Justices must have four (4) separate credentials:

(1)  SENATE CONFIRMATION  (must come first)
(2)  PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION  (must come second)
(3)  APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS  (must come after (2) above)
(4)  OATH OF OFFICE  (must come after (2) above)

The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") is the custodian of (2) PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSIONS.

The Clerk of Court is the custodian of (3) APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.

We have not found any Acts of Congress designating a custodian for
(1) SENATE CONFIRMATIONS or (4) OATHS OF OFFICE.

Very often, however, DOJ has copies of (1) and (4) in their "appointment files"
which can be obtained with a proper Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") Request
e.g. here's the latest and PAST DUE Request for Federal District Judges
currently seated in New York State:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/oaths/foia.request.usdc.dny.htm

The constitutional basis of these credentials is the
Oath of Office Clause at Article VI, Clause 3 in the
U.S. Constitution:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#6:3
(elevates each OATH OF OFFICE to the level of a fundamental Right!)


See also 4 U.S.C. 101 for a Federal law which mandates
a similar Oath of Office for all State government officers:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/101.html
("Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State ....")


The American Courts which have ruled on these points
uniformly hold that one cannot be a Federal Judge, or Justice,
if one or more of these 4 credentials is missing or defective:

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions.htm

e.g.:

Without taking the oath prescribed by law,

one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and

such an individual is without authority to act and

his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.

 

[French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934]

[Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787]



Our comprehensive database of research results can be

accessed here in the Supreme Law Library, e.g.:


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/evidence.folders.2004-03-16.htm  (see "NAD" links)


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/commissions/index.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/uoregon.edu/memo.ag01.htm



If you need help understanding this database, please contact
the Principal Investigator -- Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. --
at email address:  <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>


Many thanks to Dr. Joseph Zernik for all of his complementary work
also exposing widespread corruption in numerous American Courts.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joseph Zernik <1stamendmentla@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mr Mitchell:

Thanks for copying me on the correspondence below.  
I wish that you could summarize in 1-2 pages, aimed at the general reader (minimal legalese) your experiences relative to efforts to discover valid records of Oaths of Office of state and US judges, with links to the most relevant records on your web archive.
I would be happy to post it on my blogs and archive.
Thanks,

Joseph Zernik

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello:

You have failed to provide "public access to records" that we requested!

The State Bar of California has refused to produce any such records
even after they received a proper SUBPOENA for same:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/statebar/


Where are the licenses and indorsed certificates of the oath,

as clearly required by Section 6067 of the California Business
and Professions Code, please?



That Section reads, in pertinent part: 

"A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license."



http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6060-6069

6067.  Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any
attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A
certificate of the oath shall be
indorsed upon his license.



A sample of one such "license" (front side only) is here:





http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/rainmaker/azar/State.Bar.License.1.JPG






However, Mr. Azar failed to disclose a copy of the back side
so we cannot confirm whether or not he properly indorsed
a certificate of that oath upon that license:  "in dorso" in Latin
means "on the back", as in the case of "indorsing" a standard
bank check, or the "dorsal" fin on the back of a fish  :)

Our follow-up NOTICE AND DEMAND to Mr. Azar, dated August 30, 2010 A.D.,
now follows (.doc original also attached):

Via Email and First Class U.S. Mail

August 30, 2010 A.D.

 

SECOND NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR

EXHIBITION OF CERTIFICATE

 

David E. Azar, SBN 218319

Milberg, LLP

300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900

Los Angeles 90071

CALIFORNIA, USA

 

Subject:  reverse side of attached document

 

Greetings Mr. Azar:

 

Would you be so kind as to forward to us a true and correct photocopy of the reverse side of the attached document?

 

We received a scanned version of that document via email from one of our clients.

 

We take careful note that the document alleges that you have “taken and subscribed the oath as required by law”  [emphasis added].

 

As you know or should know, we regard said “law” to be section 6067 and all related sections of the California Business and Professions Code (“CBPC”), also known as the State Bar Act.

 

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines “subscribe” to mean:

 

Literally to write underneath, as one’s name.

To sign at the end of a document.

 

In comparison, CBPC 6067 uses the term “indorse” which is not defined as such in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.  That section reads in pertinent part:

 

A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

 

However, the term “indorser” is defined to mean:

 

Person who indorses; i.e., being the payee or holder, writes his name on the back of a negotiable instrument.  One who signs his name as payee on the back of a check to obtain the cash or credit represented on its face.  [emphasis added]

 

Similarly, the Latin phrase “in dorso” means:

 

On the back. ... In dorso recordi, on the back of the record.  Hence the English indorse, indorsement, etc.


Thus, given what we have already confirmed about how attorneys relish the opportunity to belabor such minute details, I do hope you agree with our conclusion that the document which you disclosed to us must be “subscribed” i.e. signed by you, and that you must also place your bona fide signature on the back of that document.

 

Finally, the first part of CBPC 6067 is equally explicit about the substance of the oath required by that section, as follows:

 

Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.  [emphasis added]

 

 

That is why we are requesting a true and correct copy of the reverse side of the attached document.  Without your signature “on the back”, the existence of a valid license for you to practice law in the State of California assumes facts not in evidence among such public records.

 

 

Thank you very much for your professional consideration.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell

 

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

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 

U.S. Mail:

 

    Paul Andrew Mitchell

c/o Lake Union Mail

    117 East Louisa Street

    Seattle 98102-3203

    WASHINGTON STATE, USA

 

Copies:

 

Supreme Court of California

 

State Bar of California


[end quote]


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Pubinfo <Pubinfo@jud.ca.gov> wrote:

Mr. Mitchell,

Your email has reached the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) which is the staff agency to the Judicial Council, i.e. the policy-making body for the California judicial branch. The AOC does not govern the operations of the courts and also does not govern the practice of attorneys or discipline them. Thus, the AOC is unable to assist you. For information about the function of the AOC you may visit http://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-aoc.htm.

Thank you for your interest in the judicial branch,

Executive Office Programs Division--Public Access to Records Project
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA  94102-3688
pubinfo@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov

"AOC: 50 years of service to the courts and the people of California, 1961-2011"

-----Original Message-----
From: supremelawfirm@gmail.com [mailto:supremelawfirm@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:49 AM
Subject: Website form: Public access to records

------------------------------------------------------------
First name:         Paul
Last name:          Mitchell
Address:            c/o 117 East Louisa Street
City, State, Zip:   Seattle Wa 98102
Telephone:          (206) 240-7902
Fax:
E-Mail:             supremelawfirm@gmail.com



------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Public access to records

Comments about the site:
 
California Supreme Court under investigation on suspicion of missing licenses to practice law:
 

State Bar Act secs. 6067-6068, 6126, 6128


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/baxter.marvin/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/baxter.marvin/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/baxter.marvin/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/chin.ming/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/chin.ming/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/chin.ming/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/corrigan.carol/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/corrigan.carol/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/corrigan.carol/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/george.ronald/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/george.ronald/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/george.ronald/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/kennard.joyce/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/kennard.joyce/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/kennard.joyce/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/moreno.carlos/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/moreno.carlos/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/moreno.carlos/state.bar.record.2.htm


http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/werdegar.mickle/nad.oath.htm
 (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/werdegar.mickle/state.bar.record.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/calcourts/werdegar.mickle/state.bar.record.2.htm



See also this related VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm


... and pertinent Court decisions re: sections 6067-6128:


http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/contest.ehlers.htm


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[snipped]

June 22, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink