In true "double speak" the "case law" eliminates the OATH OF OFFICE that WE REQUIRE for a person to take office.
In this case, the person argued our STATUTES that require an Oath of Office and that if there is no oath of office, then the person was NOT in office.
According to our LEGISLATED law, if a person does not take and file an OATH of OFFICE they are NOT in office. Without the Oath of Office there is NO CONSEQUENCE for violating our constitutions. Here is a "tidbit" from the "case law":
"In Schram, Egan failed to timely execute or file his oath of office before performing his duties as an officer and sought compensation for his services. 82 Minn. at 420-23, 85 N.W. at 155-56. The supreme court held that while public policy requires “that the acts of a defacto officer are valid as to . . . the public,” Egan was not entitled to benefit from that principle where the failure to conform to the statute was under his exclusive control. Id. at 422-23, 85 N.W. at 156 (emphasis added). The court did not hold that the office was vacant or that Egan’s acts as an officer were invalid."
We have a LAW (statute) that says the OFFICE IS VACANT...but the judiciary said NO..we are not going to uphold the law!
Here is the "rest of the story"...if you want to read the case:
"Case law" is NOT our LEGISLATED LAW.
The Sovereign People, who GIVE POWER to the government we created, have NEVER (by our constitutions) given the judges the power to create "case law" that eliminates our legislated law.
LOOK...READ THIS "Court Opinion". And again, see what it says.
We REQUIRE a person to give and file an OATH OF OFFICE before taking office... otherwise, according to our LAW, that office is VACANT.
But the judges say, "well, the requirement of the law was not fulfilled, but that does not matter, the office was NOT vacant."
WHERE is our EXECUTIVE branch in all of this?
How about our LEGISLATIVE branch?
HOW HAVE THE JUDGES GOTTEN ALL THIS POWER?
Goodness...is EVERYONE asleep?
|