Sovcit Obsession with Oaths of Office, Bonds

[gatsby]

Does anyone understand the sovcit obsession with oaths of office and public officials' bonds?

It seems to me that if there are any technicalities with an official's oath or bond, they would be corrected without any effect on the official's past decisions.

[Arthur Rubin]

Does anyone understand the sovcit obsession with oaths of office and public officials' bonds?

It seems to me that if there are any technicalities with an official's oath or bond, they would be corrected without any effect on the official's past decisions.

It would seem that way to any reasonable person.... However, anyone who believes in the "magic word" theory of governance would disagree (on the oath, at least; I don't understand the "bond" problem at all.)

[fortinbras]

The interest seems to have more than one motive.

1) Some of the SovCits seem to think that a judge's oath is some sort of contract with them, personally, giving them a exception to judicial immunity to sue the judge for a decision they don't like.

2) The law seems to require a bond from judges, although I gather this is mostly intended as a kind of life insurance on the judge, which the SovCits think they can somehow encumbered with liens, either thinking that alone will get them money or that it forces the judge to withdraw from a case. As far as I can tell, neither goal can be achieved.

Instead of intimidating judges, questions or motions about these two topics tend to vex them and makes for very bad karma.

[The Observer]

And others think that the bond and oath of office require the judge to rule in behalf of the sovrun who has presented all the right magic words in his or her courtroom. When the judge fails to do so, the sovrun can produce the oath and force the judge to rescind their decision. Or better yet, they look for magic words in state and federal records that somehow show that the judge din not properly take the oath or did not get their bond completed correctly. With that kind of magical proof, the sovrun then can just declare the whole court case null and void.

All of this (as well as the rest of their magical thinking) is predicated on their belief that the law is to operate perfectly and that it demands perfection. So therefore if a sovrun can find a defect, real or imagined, with a legal ruling, statute, or decision, then it must be void. They fail to consider, or at least ignore, the fact that a number of imperfect things happen all the time in court or administrative decisions. If we were to allow imperfection to be the base disqualifier, no case could ever be tried to completion. While there are critical failings that would require a case to be dismissed (or overturned on a successful appeal), stupid things like whether the judge dotted the last "i" on his bond application or if the courtroom had a gold-fringed flag are totally irrelevant to the case issue, evidence and facts.

Procedural mistakes are made all the time in court, and on appeal many times such mistakes are not allowed to overturn the verdict. This is simply because the appellate court looks to see if the mistake really affected the course of the case, or was it irrelevant or tangential to the issues. I have little doubt that sovruns on seeing a successful appeal reported in the news truly understand what occurred and why. To their thinking, it means that the law demands perfection and that is why the decision was overturned.

But because sovruns are typically cheap and/or on the lower economic rung of life, they would never pursue an appeal in the traditional (and expensive manner) of hiring a qualified appeals attorney to represent their issue. Not that they would find such an attorney in the first place, but even if they did, the fees would kill the whole deal for them. And why not? After all, they can go to their friendly neighborhood sovrun promoter who can fix them up with all sorts of legal remedies that are far cheaper than trying to resolve the issue the old-fahsioned way. And if that doesn't work, there are lots of competitors out there with alternate remedies.

The irony here is that the sovrun belief system is based on that fact that they believe they can unilaterally remove themselves from being under the legal system. Yet they continue to try to get legal rulings in their favor under the very system that they claim has no power over them. in my viewpoint, this is a strong indicator that most sovruns really don't believe that they are a sovereign citizen; rather they believe that they have to figure out a way to trick or harass our judicial system into believing that he/she are not worth the time pursuing.

[Montana Notasovrun]

The interest seems to have more than one motive.

1) Some of the SovCits seem to think that a judge's oath is some sort of contract with them, personally, giving them a exception to judicial immunity to sue the judge for a decision they don't like.

2) The law seems to require a bond from judges, although I gather this is mostly intended as a kind of life insurance on the judge, which the SovCits think they can somehow encumbered with liens, either thinking that alone will get them money or that it forces the judge to withdraw from a case. As far as I can tell, neither goal can be achieved.

Instead of intimidating judges, questions or motions about these two topics tend to vex them and makes for very bad karma.

I would think it enough to only have the government as an adversary without inviting the judge to pile on. Bad Karma? Worse!!
I think all the comments here are reflective of what's going on with sovruns. The bond and oath thing may be simply the snake oil de jour. Remember, these are very gullible people. The right pitch and any sale can be made to them.

[Assessor]

The irony here is that the sovrun belief system is based on that fact that they believe they can unilaterally remove themselves from being under the legal system.

More specifically, they believe that there is a parallel legal system that their secret incantations give them access to. There is the legal system for the average shlub who is ignorant of the Common Law Mysteries, and then there is the "real" system that they are using (or trying to use).

It infuriates them that their briefs and pleadings are not judged by the standards of the parallel system. Their pleadings are supposed to sound like gibberish, because they are playing by the rules of the "common law court", and the judge is just too stupid or corrupt to grasp that.

It's like a baseball player screaming at an umpire that the fielder should be called for travelling, and he obviously should get a free throw.

[Gregg]

It's like a baseball player screaming at an umpire that the fielder should be called for travelling, and he obviously should get a free throw.

Ha! That's what they want you to think. Any Sov'run knows that in that situation, after you get the bailiff to remove the gold fringed flag from the stadium, the batter gets a penalty kick.

[gatsby]

Thank you for all these great replies! I was thinking about it too literally, in a legal sense. I need to expand my thinking to include delusions and fantasy.

[Gregg]

Seriously, I see a combination of basic "I'm special, and those rules are only for the ones who don't know the inside rules" and people who look at the real systems they're up against and are afraid of what they don't understand about it while at the same time trying to hide that they're in over their heads.

I heard a lawyer joke once,

If you're weak on the law, pound on the facts, if you're weak on the facts, pound on the law, if you're weak both, pound on the table!

These people are pounding on the table.

[notorial dissent]

Usually, it's stamping the floor complaining that the mean old nasty traitorous judge isn't playing by their imaginary rules.

And they really don't understand why people point and laugh all the time.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sovruns seem, to me, to view the law as some sort of witchcraft where, if you utter the proper incantations (in Latin, or referring to the UCC, wherever possible), you will make the Bad Guys dry up and blow away, turn into toads, or otherwise be unable to take away your Common Law rights (whatever those are), which are the Fount Of All Liberty. You have to utter the incantations exactly; thus, if you refer to the "United States of America" instead of the "united States of America", your spell will not work.

"Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent/Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal" seems to be a particular favorite in recent months....

[gatsby]

"Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent/Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal" seems to be a particular favorite in recent months....

Yes, I've seen that several times recently.

[Pottapaug1938]

I am currently studying for my licensure exams for Life and Health Insurance; and in the course of study I have come across half of that phrase so beloved by sovruns, "notice to agent is notice to principal; notice to principal is notice to agent".

Unfortunately (for me), the study materials give no legal citations; but they make it explicitly clear that the second half of that couplet does NOT have any legal validity. In addition, the materials make clear that the sovruns are expanding the scope of agency laws so that, for example, some poor schmuck working in a clerical capacity in some regional IRS office, or some cashier in a department store, can be labeled "agents" of their employers. In reality, to be an agent, an individual has to have the ability to act on behalf of, and represent, another person or a corporation in some way. Again, to my regret, no citations....

[notorial dissent]

Sovcits are big on using "power words" and "big words", and latin phrases, and not real big at all on using, let alone actually knowing, the real definition of most of them. Mostly out of ignorance, but partly because then the words wouldn't mean what they want then to mean.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sovcits are big on using "power words" and "big words", and latin phrases, and not real big at all on using, let alone actually knowing, the real definition of most of them. Mostly out of ignorance, but partly because then the words wouldn't mean what they want then to mean.

They also think that if A=B, then B=A -- especially when it suits their needs. In this case, a fundamental ignorance of agency law has a lot to do with things....

[notorial dissent]

It certainly makes it easier to pretend to super secret knowledge that is going to change the face of the universe, or some such, and they can get away with it since their followers are way dumber and more ignorant than they are, at least until the first time it gets tried in court, and then it failed because they didn't say the right magic words in the right order. It's all fun and games and sovrun paytriot grifting, until someone goes to jail.