If a case is being filed based on Codes-Statutes and you are not on the clock as an officer, then they have to prove that they apply to thee… the courts are being run by people that have no right to be making a claim against thee… they have to prove their case, sending records requests will prove that they are sitting on quicksand…. all registration is based in fraud…
NRS 1.230 Grounds for disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court justices or judges of the Court of Appeals.
1. A judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when the judge entertains actual bias or prejudice for or against one of the parties to the action.
2. A judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when implied bias exists in any of the following respects:
(a) When the judge is a party to or interested in the action or proceeding.
(b) When the judge is related to either party by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree.
(c) When the judge has been attorney or counsel for either of the parties in the particular action or proceeding before the court.
(d) When the judge is related to an attorney or counselor for either of the parties by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree. This paragraph does not apply to the presentation of ex parte or uncontested matters, except in fixing fees for an attorney so related to the judge.
3. A judge, upon the judge’s own motion, may disqualify himself or herself from acting in any matter upon the ground of actual or implied bias.
4. A judge or court shall not punish for contempt any person who proceeds under the provisions of this chapter for a change of judge in a case.
5. This section does not apply to the arrangement of the calendar or the regulation of the order of business.
[45:19:1865; A 1907, 25; 1927, 108; 1931, 247; 1937, 214; 1939, 255; 1931 NCL § 8407] + [45a:19:1865; added 1931, 247; 1931 NCL § 8407.01]—(NRS A 1957, 69; 1965, 551; 1969, 351; 1975, 608; 1977, 765)
NRS 1.235 Procedure for disqualifying judges other than Supreme Court justices or judges of the Court of Appeals.
1. Any party to an action or proceeding pending in any court other than the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, who seeks to disqualify a judge for actual or implied bias or prejudice must file an affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought. The affidavit of a party represented by an attorney must be accompanied by a certificate of the attorney of record that the affidavit is filed in good faith and not interposed for delay. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, the affidavit must be filed:
(a) Not less than 20 days before the date set for trial or hearing of the case; or
(b) Not less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing of any pretrial matter.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsection 3, if a case is not assigned to a judge before the time required under subsection 1 for filing the affidavit, the affidavit must be filed:
(a) Within 10 days after the party or the party’s attorney is notified that the case has been assigned to a judge;
(b) Before the hearing of any pretrial matter; or
(c) Before the jury is empaneled, evidence taken or any ruling made in the trial or hearing,
Ê whichever occurs first. If the facts upon which disqualification of the judge is sought are not known to the party before the party is notified of the assignment of the judge or before any pretrial hearing is held, the affidavit may be filed not later than the commencement of the trial or hearing of the case.
3. If a case is reassigned to a new judge and the time for filing the affidavit under subsection 1 and paragraph (a) of subsection 2 has expired, the parties have 10 days after notice of the new assignment within which to file the affidavit, and the trial or hearing of the case must be rescheduled for a date after the expiration of the 10-day period unless the parties stipulate to an earlier date.
4. At the time the affidavit is filed, a copy must be served upon the judge sought to be disqualified. Service must be made by delivering the copy to the judge personally or by leaving it at the judge’s chambers with some person of suitable age and discretion employed therein.
5. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, the judge against whom an affidavit alleging bias or prejudice is filed shall proceed no further with the matter and shall:
(a) If the judge is a district judge, immediately transfer the case to another department of the court, if there is more than one department of the court in the district, or request the judge of another district court to preside at the trial or hearing of the matter;
(b) If the judge is a justice of the peace, immediately arrange for another justice of the peace to preside at the trial or hearing of the matter as provided pursuant to NRS 4.032, 4.340 or 4.345, as applicable; or
(c) If the judge is a municipal judge, immediately arrange for another municipal judge to preside at the trial or hearing of the matter as provided pursuant to NRS 5.023 or 5.024, as applicable.
6. A judge may challenge an affidavit alleging bias or prejudice by filing a written answer with the clerk of the court within 5 judicial days after the affidavit is filed, admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the affidavit and setting forth any additional facts which bear on the question of the judge’s disqualification. The question of the judge’s disqualification must thereupon be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by the parties or, if they are unable to agree, by a judge appointed:
(a) If the judge is a district judge, by the presiding judge of the judicial district in judicial districts having more than one judge, or if the presiding judge of the judicial district is sought to be disqualified, by the judge having the greatest number of years of service;
(b) If the judge is a justice of the peace, by the presiding judge of the justice court in justice courts having more than one justice of the peace, or if the presiding judge is sought to be disqualified, by the justice of the peace having the greatest number of years of service;
(c) If the judge is a municipal judge, by the presiding judge of the municipal court in municipal courts having more than one municipal judge, or if the presiding judge is sought to be disqualified, by the municipal judge having the greatest number of years of service; or
(d) If there is no presiding judge, by the Supreme Court.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 767; A 1979, 59, 393; 1981, 319, 872; 2011, 9; 2013, 1711; 2017, 272)
How to #disqualify a #judge on your case
Judges Can’t Hear Cases When There’s a Conflict of Interest? Some Do.
Judicial Independence (The Judicial Learning Center)
One of these checks is #impeachment. Impeachment is the process of charging a federal official (in this case, a judge) with committing a “high crime or misdemeanor.” If a judge is impeached, and found guilty of an impeachable offense, then they can be removed from office.
The process of impeachment is detailed in Article I of the Constitution. The House of Representatives investigates the improper behavior, and charges the accused. Members of the House then try the case before the Senate, which acts as the judge and jury in the case (unless in cases of Presidential or Vice Presidential impeachment, when the Chief Justice of the United States presides). If the Senate votes guilty (by a majority vote), the person is removed from office.
Checks and Balances
Independent judges protect our freedoms, but it is also important to protect the people from a court that is too powerful. With complete independence judges could throw people in jail or change laws on a whim.
The Constitution gives judges the power to do their jobs, but it also sets out ways to prevent them from abusing their power. This guarantees that independent courts and judges remain faithful to the rule of law.
Article III of the Constitution, tells us that judges “. . . shall hold their offices during good behavior.” Though this is a bit vague, the intent is clear. Judges have life terms, because once appointed they keep their jobs until they choose to quit so long as they have “good behavior.” To ensure this good behavior, there are some “checks” on judicial power built into the Constitution.
The impeachment process is a powerful check that the legislative branch has over the judicial and executive branches of government. In the case of judicial independence, impeachment offers some security that if judges are acting in an illegal fashion, they can be removed from the bench.
A second major check on the power of the courts is the #judicialcode of conduct. When judges take office, they agree to abide by a set of ethical principles established by the Judicial Conference of the United States. This Code of Conduct for United States Judges, according to the United States Courts web page, “provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance.
There are many ethical guidelines that judges must follow to remain independent, for example:
Judges should not hear cases if it may appear they have a personal bias. For example, if they are related to the defendant or plaintiff, there is a chance the judge might have personal knowledge of facts in the case, or may have a financial interest in the case.
If a judge has some bias in a case, or if the judge is concerned someone else may think they have a bias in the case, they can recuse themselves. This means that they step down from the case and allow another judge to take it.
To read the full code of conduct for federal judges, click here to visit the website of the U.S. Courts.
Federal judges take the following #oath:
“I, ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [Judge] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
One of the first acts of the new Congress was to establish a Federal court system through the Judiciary Act signed by President Washington on September 24, 1789.
The founders of the new nation believed that the establishment of a national judiciary was one of their most important tasks. Yet Article III of the Constitution of the United States, the provision that deals with the judiciary branch of government, is markedly smaller than Articles I and II, which created the legislative and executive branches.
The generality of Article III of the Constitution raised questions that Congress had to address in the Judiciary Act of 1789. These questions had no easy answers, and the solutions to them were achieved politically. The First Congress decided that it could regulate the jurisdiction of all Federal courts, and in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established with great particularity a limited jurisdiction for the district and circuit courts, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution, and granted the Court appellate jurisdiction in cases from the Federal circuit courts and from the state courts where those courts rulings had rejected Federal claims. The decision to grant Federal courts a jurisdiction more restrictive than that allowed by the Constitution represented a recognition by the Congress that the people of the United States would not find a full-blown Federal court system palatable at that time.
For nearly all of the next century the judicial system remained essentially as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Only after the country had expanded across a continent and had been torn apart by civil war were major changes made. A separate tier of appellate circuit courts created in 1891 removed the burden of circuit riding from the shoulders of the Supreme Court justices, but otherwise left intact the judicial structure.
With minor adjustments, it is the same system we have today. Congress has continued to build on the interpretation of the drafters of the first judiciary act in exercising a discretionary power to expand or restrict Federal court jurisdiction. While opinions as to what constitutes the proper balance of Federal and state concerns vary no less today than they did two centuries ago, the fact that today’s Federal court system closely resembles the one created in 1789 suggests that the First Congress performed its job admirably.
More relative notes:
SUMMARY OF JURISDICTION The Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the following matters: 1. All claims against the State founded upon any State law or regulation other than Workmen’s Compensation claims. 2. All contract claims against the State. 3. All compensation claims against the State for time unjustly served in Illinois prisons, filed by persons who have been pardoned bases on innocence, or have been awarded a Certificate of Innocence. 4. All damage claims against the State for torts “...if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a civil suit...” Specifically included are all tort claims against the Medical Center Commission, the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, the Board of Trustees of Chicago State University, the Board of Trustees of Eastern Illinois University, the Board of Trustees of Governor’s State University, the Board of Trustees of Illinois State University, the Board of Trustees of Northeastern Illinois University, the Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University, the Board of Trustees of Western Illinois University and the Board of Trustees of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. 5. All claims for recoupment made by the State of Illinois against any claimant. 6. All claims under the Line of Duty Compensation Act. 7. All claims under the Crime Victims Compensation Act. 8. All claims under the Illinois National Guardsman’s Compensation Act. 9. Action for recovery of funds deposited with the State pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. 10. Claims for damages caused by escaped inmates of State institutions. 11. All other claims against the State under related statutes. https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/cc_pub4.pdf Court of Claims Publications/Forms Forms on this website are PDF forms with fillable fields. The forms should be downloaded to your computer before filling in the fields. The form should be opened and completed in Adobe Acrobat Reader (DC) for the best result. Web browsers don't support all the features of a fillable PDF form https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/courtclaimspub.html Filing a Claim Court of Claims The Court of Claims is the court of exclusive jurisdiction for all claims filed against the State of Illinois. Please complete the relevant complaint form in its entirety; include your #socialsecuritynumber or your Federal Employee Identification Number. If you are represented by an attorney, also complete the appropriate section of the complaint form so that all correspondence may be directed to the attorney's office. Please sign the Complaint form. Please send the completed Complaint form along with check for the filing fee made payable to the order of Illinois Court of Claims: Illinois Court Of Claims 630 S. College St. Springfield, IL 62756 https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/court_of_claims/file.html #courtofclaims #illinois #jurisdiction
Risk Management Liability Claims Process An incident occurs where a claimant sustains injury and/or property damage and which they believe resulted from a City activity. Claimant files a Tort Claim Notice with Risk Management. Claimants are encouraged to contact their own insurer if they need immediate repairs or if their claim has been denied. A claim file is created, and a Risk Claims Analyst is assigned to the case. The analyst sends an acknowledgment letter to claimant with a claim number and the analyst’s contact information (email and phone number). The claimant is advised to submit supporting documentation of their loss if not already provided. The analyst documents the claimant’s version of the event or activity which occurred, and how it resulted in damages. On the same day the acknowledgment letter is sent, the analyst sends a copy of the tort claim notice to the City bureau(s) which may be involved, along with a memo requesting all available information related to the incident in question. This information may include police reports, incident reports, photos, statements from bureau employees and supervisors, maintenance records, and work orders. After receipt of all pertinent information, the analyst reviews the documents and statements to determine if the information is sufficient to determine liability. The review may lead to additional clarifying conversations with both the claimant or bureau representatives and potentially more documents may be requested and submitted. The analyst reviews all documentation, seeking to answer primary questions: Was the City negligent? What did the City do wrong, and was that action a direct cause of claimant’s damages? Were there other conditions that may have contributed to claimant’s damages? The analyst makes a liability determination after thorough review of all documents and evidence. If there is no liability on the City, the claim is denied. If some liability exists for both the City and the claimant, the analyst may begin to negotiate a settlement based on apportionment of fault between the parties. If all liability is on the City, the analyst begins settlement discussions with claimant, their attorney (if represented) or with claimant’s insurance carrier. Claimants receiving a denial may speak further with their assigned analyst or the Claims Manager to better understand the City’s decision. Appeal of a denial by a claimant is generally through the court system; attorneys are sometimes involved but not required. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/brfs/article/731155 #riskmanagement #claims #oregon
[A] key component of the #collateral package for subscription-backed #credit facilities (each, a “Facility”) is the #secruityinterest an investment fund (each, a “Fund”) #grants to the lender(s) under a Facility in the deposit or securities #account established to hold the capital contributions received from the Fund’s investors (the “Collateral Account”). Although the Collateral Account in many Facilities may be a securities account, this Legal Update is limited to a discussion of deposit accounts as that term is defined in the applicable Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). This Legal Update explores potential areas of concern for lenders associated with Collateral Account documentation and follows with considerations for drafting and best practices used to mitigate, and 👉ideally avoid, potential issues associated with Collateral Accounts. [What might that be]?
[U]nder the #UCC in effect in the State of New York (the “NY UCC”), in order to perfect a security interest in a Collateral Account which is a 👉deposit account, the #lender (as the secured party) A key component of the collateral package for subscription-backed credit facilities (each, a “Facility”) is the security interest an investment fund (each, a “Fund”) grants to the lender(s) under a Facility in the deposit or securities account established to hold the capital contributions received from the Fund’s investors (the “Collateral Account”). Although the Collateral Account in many Facilities may be a securities account, this Legal Update is limited to a discussion of deposit accounts as that term is defined in the applicable Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). This Legal Update explores potential areas of concern for lenders associated with Collateral Account documentation and follows with considerations for drafting and best practices used to mitigate, and ideally avoid, potential issues associated with Collateral Accounts.
[T]he NY UCC provides the following methods a lender may use to establish the control required for perfecting a security interest in a deposit account: (1) the lender is the bank maintaining the deposit account (the “Account Bank”), (2) the lender, the Fund and the Account Bank enter into a written agreement pursuant to which the Account Bank agrees to follow the lender’s instructions regarding the funds in the account without further consent from the Fund, (3) the lender is the customer of the Account Bank with respect to the deposit account, (4) the name on the account is the name of the lender or indicates that the lender has a security interest in the account, or (5) another person has control of the account on behalf of the lender or, if the person is already in control of the account, acknowledges that it has control on behalf of the lender. NY UCC § 9-104(a)(1)–(5).
[I]n most Facilities, the lender establishes control of the Collateral Account by serving as the Account Bank or entering into a triparty control agreement with the Fund and the Account Bank, as described in NY UCC Section 9-104(a)(2) above (each, a “Control Agreement”). The Control Agreement establishes the lender’s control over the Collateral Account for perfection purposes and specifies when the Account Bank will accept instructions relating to the funds in the account from the lender, the Fund or both. Although the Control Agreement provides the lender with the continuous control required for perfection, in practice, the lender may encounter issues maintaining and exercising its contractual rights in the Facility’s Collateral Account which cannot practically be addressed in the Facility documents or Control Agreement.
1 Under NY UCC § 9-314, security interests in deposit accounts are perfected when the 👉👉secured party establishes control of the collateral and 👉remain perfected only as long as the lender continues to have control.
2 For further discussion on default remedies, see “Default Remedies under Subscription Credit Facilities: Guide to the Foreclosure Process” in the Mayer Brown Fund Finance Market Review, Spring 2018.
Check out the UCC-1 form… who is the debtor and who is the creditor?
UCC1 NAWAPA.pdf – Google Drive
PART 2640 - INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST)
5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); 18 U.S.C. 208; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
61 FR 66841, Dec. 18, 1996, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A - General Provisions
§ 2640.101 Purpose.
18 U.S.C. 208(a) prohibits an officer or employee of the executive branch, of any independent agency of the United States, of the District of Columbia, or Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or any special Government employee from participating in an official capacity in particular matters in which he has a personal financial interest, or in which certain persons or organizations with which he is affiliated have a financial interest. The statute is intended to prevent an employee from allowing personal interests to affect his official actions, and to protect governmental processes from actual or apparent conflicts of interests. However, in certain cases, the nature and size of the financial interest and the nature of the matter in which the employee would act are unlikely to affect an employee's official actions. Accordingly, the statute permits waivers of the disqualification provision in certain cases, either on an individual basis or pursuant to general regulation. Section 208(b)(2) provides that the Director of the Office of Government Ethics may, by regulation, exempt from the general prohibition, financial interests which are too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of the employees to which the prohibition applies. The regulations in this part describe those financial interests. This part also provides guidance to agencies on the factors to consider when issuing individual waivers under 18 U.S.C. 208 (b)(1) or (b)(3), and provides an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 208(a).
§ 2640.102 Definitions.
For purposes of this part:
(a) Diversified means that the fund, trust or plan does not have a stated policy of concentrating its investments in any industry, business, single country other than the United States, or bonds of a single State within the United States and, in the case of an employee benefit plan, means that the plan's trustee has a written policy of varying plan investments.
Note to paragraph (a):
A mutual fund is diversified for purposes of this part if it does not have a policy of concentrating its investments in an industry, business, country other than the United States, or single State within the United States. Whether a mutual fund meets this standard may be determined by checking the fund's prospectus or by calling a broker or the manager of the fund. An employee benefit plan is diversified if the plan manager has a written policy of varying assets. This policy might be found in materials describing the plan or may be obtained in a written statement from the plan manager. It is important to note that a mutual fund or employee benefit plan that is diversified for purposes of this part may not necessarily be an excepted investment fund (EIF) for purposes of reporting financial interests pursuant to 5 CFR 2634.310(c) and 2634.907(i)(3). In some cases, an employee may have to report the underlying assets of a fund or plan on his financial disclosure statement even though an exemption set forth in this part would permit the employee to participate in a matter affecting the underlying assets of the fund or plan. Conversely, there may be situations in which no exemption in this part is applicable to the assets of a fund or plan which is properly reported as an EIF on the employee's financial disclosure statement.
(b) Employee means an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, or any other individual subject to requirements of 18 U.S.C. 208. The term also includes a special Government employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202.
(c) Employee benefit plan means a plan as defined in section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1002(3), and that has more than one participant. An employee benefit plan is any plan, fund or program established or maintained by an employer or an employee organization, or both, to provide its participants medical, disability, death, unemployment, or vacation benefits, training programs, day care centers, scholarship funds, prepaid legal services, deferred income, or retirement income.
(d) He, his, and him include she, hers, and her.
(e) Holdings means portfolio of investments.
(f) Independent trustee means a trustee who is independent of the sponsor and the participants in a plan, or is a registered investment advisor.
(g) Institution of higher education means an educational institution as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1141(a).
(h) Issuer means a person who issues or proposes to issue any security, or has any outstanding security which it has issued.
(i) Long-term Federal Government security means a bond or note, except for a U.S. Savings bond, with a maturity of more than one year issued by the United States Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. chapter 31.
(j) Municipal security means direct obligation of, or obligation guaranteed as to principal or interest by, a State (or any of its political subdivisions, or any municipal corporate instrumentality of one or more States), or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or any other possession of the United States.
(k) Mutual fund means an entity which is registered as a management company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.). For purposes of this part, the term mutual fund includes open-end and closed-end mutual funds and registered money market funds.
(l) Particular matter involving specific parties includes any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties. The term typically involves a specific proceeding affecting the legal rights of the parties, or an isolatable transaction or related set of transactions between identified parties.
(m) Particular matter of general applicability means a particular matter that is focused on the interests of a discrete and identifiable class of persons, but does not involve specific parties.
(n) Pension plan means any plan, fund or program maintained by an employer or an employee organization, or both, to provide retirement income to employees, or which results in deferral of income for periods extending to, or beyond, termination of employment.
(o) Person means an individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society or any other organization or institution.
(p) Publicly traded security means a security as defined in paragraph (r) of this section and which is:
(1) Registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) and listed on a national or regional securities exchange or traded through NASDAQ;
(2) Issued by an investment company registered pursuant to section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (15 U.S.C. 80a-8); or
(3) A corporate bond registered as an offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l) and issued by an entity whose stock is a publicly traded security.
Note to paragraph (p):
National securities exchanges include the American Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. Regional exchanges include Boston, Cincinnati, Intermountain (Salt Lake City), Midwest (Chicago), Pacific (Los Angeles and San Francisco), Philadelphia (Philadelphia and Miami), and Spokane stock exchanges.
(q) Sector mutual fund or sector unit investment trust means a mutual fund or unit investment trust that concentrates its investments in an industry, business, single country other than the United States, or bonds of a single State within the United States.
(r) Security means common stock, preferred stock, corporate bond, municipal security, long-term Federal Government security, and limited partnership interest. The term also includes “mutual fund” for purposes of § 2640.202(e) and (f) and § 2640.203(a).
(s) Short-term Federal Government security means a bill with a maturity of one year or less issued by the United States Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. chapter 31.
(t) Special Government employee means those #executivebranch officers or employees specified in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). A special Government employee is retained, designated, appointed or employed to perform temporary duties either on a full-time or intermittent basis, with or without compensation, for a period not to exceed 130 days during any consecutive 365-day period.
(u) Unit investment trust means an investment company as defined in 15 U.S.C. 80a-4(2) that is a regulated investment company under 26 U.S.C. 851.
(v) United States Savings bond means a savings bond issued by the United States Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3105.
[61 FR 66841, Dec. 18, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 12445, Mar. 19, 2002; 71 FR 28239, May 16, 2006; 78 FR 14441, Mar. 6, 2013; 81 FR 61100, Sept. 6, 2016]https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-XVI/subchapter-B/part-2640
#ethics #ethicsingovernmentact #18usc208 #26usc #15usc #5usc #20usc
MalikaDulce 2 years ago Edited
Well how can you prove you Are not a US citizen? Pretty hard is it not? Has anyone ever beat the PRESUMPTION, as I have in 1998, that you really have evidence of that? WELL LET’S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT The Statute at large to become a US citizen is The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,. YOU MEAN YOU NEVER WENT BACK THAT FAR? WHY? DON”T YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY DID to SCREW YOU ROYALLY OUT OF YOUR FREEDOMS FOR LIFE? #ActofCongress #uscitizen http://landgrantpatent.org/pdf/none_us_citizen.pdf
2 years ago
OMG, check out how to be a "citizen of the United States"!! CHP. XXVIII.-- to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. (a) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, **and not otherwise**:- [Love that definitive language! lol] First, That he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territorial districts of the United States, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years at least, before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/7th-congress/session-1/c7s1ch28.pdf [are we done with the #falsecertification and #falsepersonation now?? Or are we to continue being criminals!?] #4USC101 #OathOfOffice
Leave a Reply