Take action for Liberty each and every day.
Support an open press. Teknosis' continued operation and existence crucially depends on your informative contributions, donation or paying forward, partnering with or taking advantage of that referred or advertised here. Thank you.
++++++++++++++++++
++ Donate via PayPal ++
++++++++++++++++++
The Credential Investigation, launched by our office in August 2001, recently requested APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all BOP personnel going back 10 years -- the discovery window authorized by 18 USC 1961(5).
Not a single credential was disclosed, and every one of those FOIA Requests is now PAST DUE and also IN DEFAULT.
The Act of Congress at 5 USC 5507 bars federal officers from being paid, if they have not executed valid U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.
Making matters worse, the electronic SF-61 published at OPM's Internet website is a known COUNTERFEIT: no OMB control number; no expiration date; no citation to 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer); and the misleading claim"Prior editions not usable" when the only valid SF-61s pre-date August 2002.
Many of those SF-61s were also "administered" by HR assistants not authorized to do so by 5 USC 2903.
This whole mess is rendered even more serious by the Oath of Office Clause in the organic U.S. Constitution, which pre-dates the Bill of Rights and has never been amended.
The Credential Investigation, launched by our office in August 2001, recently requested APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS for all BOP personnel going back 10 years -- the discovery window authorized by 18 USC 1961(5).
Not a single credential was disclosed, and every one of those FOIA Requests is now PAST DUE and also IN DEFAULT.
The Act of Congress at 5 USC 5507 bars federal officers from being paid, if they have not executed valid U.S. OPM Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS.
Making matters worse, the electronic SF-61 published at OPM's Internet website is a known COUNTERFEIT: no OMB control number; no expiration date; no citation to 5 USC 2903 (Authority to administer); and the misleading claim"Prior editions not usable" when the only valid SF-61s pre-date August 2002.
Many of those SF-61s were also "administered" by HR assistants not authorized to do so by 5 USC 2903.
This whole mess is rendered even more serious by the Oath of Office Clause in the organic U.S. Constitution, which pre-dates the Bill of Rights and has never been amended.
(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
That Abrogation Clause is obviously unconstitutional:
the Supreme Court may not make law, and Congress
may not delegate law-making authority to 9 black robes.
A similar Abrogation Clause was also added to the
Title 18 revision, at the former 18 U.S.C. 3771;
however, that statute was later repealed and
replaced with a different statute dealing with
Crime Victims' Rights ("CVRA").
It's highly unusual for a section in the
U.S. Code to be repealed and then
REPLACED with entirely different text
but retaining the same section number!
Now that the Abrogation Clause in Title 28
has been proven to be unconstitutional,
the holding in Willy v. Coastal Corp. bars
all United States District Courts from
claiming any criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.
We know full well that they do make that claim,
but they cannot prove it!
The general rule in all Federal jurisprudence
is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction
upon Federal District Courts must be STRICTLY
construed. Just read it for yourself and
confirm that section 3231 granted criminal jurisdiction
The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
Check out this extra ZINGER, in the Notes under that section:
Senate Revision Amendment
The text of this section was changed by Senate amendment.
See Senate Report No. 1620, amendment No. 10, 80th Cong.
There is no evidence of any vote by the U.S. House of Representatives,
and no evidence of any Presidential signature on that "Senate amendment".
As such, this "Senate amendment" is further evidence of a
fraudulent attempt to tamper with section 3231, so as to
make it APPEAR that the USDC had been conferred with
criminal jurisdiction, when such a claim simply cannot be
sustained in light of Willy v. Coastal Corp. and the
obvious unconstitutionality of the Abrogation Clause
Take action for Liberty each and every day.
Support an open press. Teknosis' continued operation and existence crucially depends on your informative contributions, donation or paying forward, partnering with or taking advantage of that referred or advertised here. Thank you.
++++++++++++++++++
++ Donate via PayPal ++
++++++++++++++++++