Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Point 004.

Affiant has no record or evidence that Oaths of office are not required by all public
officials, judges, law enforcement personnel, administrators, and many other persons who have
voluntarily submitted themselves into the duties of said offices/positions and are given monetary
and other benefits for such commitment, as made more explicit in EXHIBIT 004 - NOTICE OF
OATHS REQUIRED, with several Points added.
ADMIT - Libellees listed in this document admit and agree to the truth that Oaths are required
for positions of public servitude.

EXHIBIT 004 - NOTICE OF OATHS REQUIRED


According to Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution, "All executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to
support this Constitution..."
Affiant hereby makes explicit NOTICE and DECLARATION of one specific Right granted to
Affiant by way of the Constitution of the United States; that being, the right to demand all
judicial, executive, and legislative officers and agents of the United States government and all
sub-corporate governmental entities give their required Oath to protect and defend my
unalienable rights, given to me by my Creator; that it be duly recorded and made available to all
who may from time to time be, questioned by corporate entities, or, accused of any infamous
crime against society.
Affiants acceptance of said "required Oaths" consumates a contract, in fact, and, in force,
between all such entities and Affiant with enforceable and punishable ramifications should the
offering party fail to fully, promptly, and properly comply.
Affiant accepts, as fact, that Affiant is not a party to the Constitution, has sworn no allegiance to
the Constitution, and has no other "constitutional" rights; being a man in the private sector, a
Private Man, without the United States and without United States territorial and "federal area"
overlay jurisdiction.
The APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3331; the Clerk of that Court is the
designated legal custodian of that mandatory credential, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2906.

Point 004 A. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Offices is not required by
law, as per; "Applicable statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist if the
person chosen for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law". Parker v.
Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.
Point 004 B. Affiant has no record or evidence that failure to comly with laws for Oath of Office
will not forfeit their right to office, as per; "Failure to comply with such provisions will
absolutely forfeit the right to office". Brannon v. Perky, 127 W Va 103, 31 SE2d 898, 158

ALR 631.
Point 004 C. Affiant has no record or evidence that supposed office is not vacant by reason of
failure to file, as per; "Office is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath". Boisvert
v. County of Ontario, 395 NYS2d 617.
Point 004 D. Affiant has no record or evidence that filing of Oath of Office must not be timely, as
per; "Failure to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so requiring, neither
notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is automatically vacant and may be
filled as provided by law". Comins v. County of Delaware, 411 NYS2d 533.
Point 004 E. Affiant has no record or evidence that failure to qualify within 60 days is not an
action to vacate an office, as per; "[an] Act Declaring office vacant and to be filled as
provided by law for failure to qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is
unconstitutional and applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated". State Ex
Rel. Stain v. Christensen, 84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Point 004 F. Affiant has no record or evidence that a proper Oath of Office does not apply to the
highest levels of law, as per; "Judges of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when
entering upon their duties as justices thereof". Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U. 378, 131 P.2d
794.
Point 004 G. Affiant has no record or evidence that a late filing is not TOO LATE, as per;
"Filing an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a compliance with the law,
confers no power to act as a public officer or in a public office and any person who fails to
file his oath of office within the time limits required by law creates an ipso facto vacancy
and such person's acts are void and vitiate any subsequent proceedings". Parker v.
Overman, 59 U.S. 137, 15 L.Ed 316.