-
A litigant has the perfect legal right to formally ask any judge before whom he/she appears in open court whether he has coverage of a penal bond binding him to the oath of office he takes. Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the USA; Article XXII, Section 19, Constitution of NM; and Sections 10-2-5, 6, 7, and 9 may be used as justification of the
-
THE PURPOSE OF A PENAL BOND BINDING A PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDER TO THE PROMISES CONTAINED IN THE OATH OF OFFICE NMSA 10-2-9: Each and every person who may hereafter be elected or appointed to office in New Mexico, is required by law to give bond, shall file the same for record before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office. All persons elected
-
Article VI. Clause 3 U.S. Constitution "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and 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; but no religious Test shall ever be required
-
"bound by Oath or Affirmation" If you're bound by Oath, then that just means you swore to an oath, right? Why would you need to purchase a penal bond? If you choose the alternative, to be bound by Affirmation, do you still need a penal bond? The penal bond is the consideration that makes the contract valid. See: http://thepeopleofnewmexico
-
Thats great if victims of the state have had success with such a strategy; did you innovate this approach or where did you hear about it? It reminds me of Mark Stevens of Adventures in Legal-land fame, are you in contact? Thanks for the information about Marc Stevens. I will watch and read his stuff. The concept I am talking about pertains to contract
-
"Officeholders can be legally challenged as imposters. In a court of law, if you are charged with a crime or lawsuit, if the judge does not legally posess the office he/she claims to hold, then his/her court is incompetent and has no jurisdiction." Claiming to have jurisdiction over non-subjects makes them all imposters anyway. Imposters,
-
No, I did not innovate this approach. I learned of it last spring. I have copies of the lawsuits which I would be willing to share with interested parties. I don't know how to post a pdf in this forum and some of the documents I have are images not text. I can email them, but I don't know how to post them.
-
The fact is that courts in New Mexico are recognizing that they do not have jurisdiction and that their hands are tied. Lawsuits are being put on hold until competent courts can be found. So, when you claim zero chance of success, the proof is in the results. They take money from me to support their regime. If I withdraw my support, they come after
-
It's not majority rule. It's an Oligarchy that controls. While I understand why you are saying what you are saying, the fact is that they control the military, law enforcement, and the distribution of wealth. If that is not important to you, or something you would like to change, then why are you here?
-
"What difference does it make?" Officeholders can be legally challenged as imposters. In a court of law, if you are charged with a crime or lawsuit, if the judge does not legally posess the office he/she claims to hold, then his/her court is incompetent and has no jurisdiction. Government does lay claim to much of the land where wealth originates