VulturesBreaking News: Judges Acting Under False Oaths- Oregon Government Exposed - Void of Law at the Top
Supreme Court
Judges Committing Treason in Office under Color of Law
Judgements are
Null and Void and Unenforceable
Your freedom hangs in the balance today.
503-845-6734
A Voice for Children
FFifth Amendment Coalition
JAIL4JUDGES Oregon
YOUR JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CHALLENGED! DO NOT TRY TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE CORPORATE VEIL OF COMMERCIALLY LIMITED CIVIL LIABILITY ESTABLISHED BY YOUR OATH. YOU WILL DO SO ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL COMMERCIALLY UNLIMITED CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
TTHE DELIBERATE MALUSE OF THE OFFICE OF JUDGE IS TREASON.
The following documents are being entrusted to you, as a Trustee of these documents, with full authority granted to you by 42 U.S.C. 1986; the Brothers Keepers Statute to act.
Milton Everett, Mitchek, did search the Oregon law to find out why those biased officials who corrupt the government and who oppose the People’s good faith attempts to seek remedy through Oregon Courts, are not upholding their Oath/Oath of Office.
My research revealed that Oregon Judges do not take the required oath to support and uphold the Original 1857-59 Constitution.
The Supreme Court and the Circuit Court Judges’ oaths were changed from the Original 1857-59 Constitution of “said state” to a different, fictional state: “this state”, in 1910.
“this state” “means the land and water and the air space above the land and water with respect to which the State of Oregon has legislative jurisdiction”. (Oregon laws 1973, chapter 836, page 2708, Section 13) (O.R.S. 131.205)
Therefore, this “artificial” and technically Constitutionally Lawless Jurisdiction, “this state”, is overlaid above our Constitutionally Lawful “Union state of Oregon”.
Article VII Amended changed the Supreme Court Judge’s title to “Judges of the Supreme Court”.
My research revealed that the State of Oregon Supreme Court Judges/ Judges of the Supreme Court do not take Oregon’s required Constitutional Oath, Article VII, Amended Section 7, and no change of oath has been made since
1910.
Without a valid Oath of Office, he/she is not a Judge; but, rather, impersonating a Judge.
A rebel Oregon Judge who does not take and uphold Oregon’s required Oath is committing treason against the Oregon Constitution, the Law of the Land and the People.
I talked with Personnel at the State Court Administration Office on June 28, 2001. They said Supreme and Circuit Court Judges should take the required oath in Article VII, Amended Section 7.
All Supreme and Circuit Court Judges must take the same, constitutionally-required Oath/Oath of Office.
Any oath that is less than the required oath is imperfect, fraud, and false Oath, void from the beginning Oath of Office. Consequently, under such defective oath, the Judge is non-judicial, merely impersonating a Judge. All judicial decisions are void while he/she is impersonating a Judge. The office is vacant and needs to be filled.
No wonder Oregon’s unconstitutional Judges are biased!
Now you know the continuing manifestation of the incompetence and corruption infecting the legal profession and the judiciary of Oregon.
It is the attitude, demeanor, and bias that indicates misconduct.
A state of MIXED WAR AND SLAVERY exists if the Judges (“Just-us gang”) do not allow the people a constitutional remedy of appeal to constitutional Judges.
For every legal problem, there must be a lawful remedy, if peace and dignity are to continue in a society. People must be able to assemble peaceably and petition their government for a redress of grievances, whether the grievance be caused by the government itself or by another citizen(s).
When a remedy does not exist, a constitutional remedy must be created or else anarchy prevails. [A remedy proposed by affidavit and unchallenged becomes a remedy in fact.]
To all Judges, who are paid by contract to serve the government, “We the People”, the Citizens of the Union state of Oregon:
Given: The failure of a judge to take the above said state Oath makes all of his/her Orders and Judgments null and void, ab initio.
Q. Did you, Judge, take your “Oath of Office” as per Article VII, (original) Section 21?
Given: The failure of a judge to take the above “this state” Oath makes all of his/her Orders and Judgments null and void, ab initio.
Q. Then did you, Judge, take your “Oath of Office” as per Article VII (amended) Section 7?
The remedy is for Judges to take and uphold Oregon’s constitutionally required Oath, or, in the alternative, replace Judges who won’t uphold Oregon’s constitutionally required Oath, with Judges who will uphold Oregon’s constitutionally required Oath.
Urgent! You may be in violation of your Oath of Office!
Well, there you have the procedure Judges are deemed to know, which is deliberately ignored.
The unconstitutional, non-judicial alleged Circuit Court Judge, Paul Lipcomb, has no constitutional authority to decide the constitutionality of Measure 7 that was overwhelmingly passed by the voters. Unconstitutional Judges should not be allowed or permitted to make judgment of the People’s important business before the court.
Who gave these alleged Judges the authority to change their oath allowing them to be biased?
When the alleged Judge is not a Judge, there is no jurisdiction.
IT’S A WAKE UP CALL FOR OREGON!
Judges must follow the laws or suffer the consequences. Judges are out of office, because they were never properly in.
Are Judges above the law? When did the Supreme Court Judges qualify to discharge any official duties, by the breach of their constitutional Oath?
“We, the People” are the sovereigns, and those on government payrolls work for us as long as they obey our laws.
The Maxims of law of all civilized societies are based upon truth in Governments and Commerce, and just compensation for one’s labor, with equal protection under the law. There are no exceptions!
Please be advised that all Judges by virtue of Judges Oath of Office have a consensual commercial contract with the people of Oregon.
A Judge’s Oath/Oath of Office puts Judge under Servant relationship to the Masters, “We the People”, who demand that Judges take and uphold their Oath.
DEMAND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL OATH OF OFFICE
“We the People” with all due respect, remind the presiding Judicial
Officer that he/she has given his/her bond of fidelity called a Covenant
(“…so help me God.”) to “support the Constitution of the United States,
and the Constitution of the State of Oregon” and, further, to
“faithfully and impartially discharge (perform) the duties of a Judge..”
Said Covenant/Oath, in the performance of said duties, is paramount over
all other bodies of “law” or “policy” and paramount over all other
Oaths, pledges and corporeal Covenants.
“We the People”, with all
due respect, hereby give Judicial Notice of the People’s Demand that the
presiding Judicial Officers comport themselves in a manner that is fully
consistent with, and gives full force and effect to, the above-quoted
Covenant/Oath.
The Constitution declares that all political power
is inherent in the People, and that all powers not directly and
specifically delegated to Public Servants are reserved for and remain
with the People. (Constitution for the United States of America, 10th
Amendment)
Our Public Servants are accountable to us.
It
is time we hold them genuinely and strictly accountable for the specific
performance liability* of their Office, and cause the profits resulting
from governmental activity to be directly delivered to the People, who
are the compulsory stockholders of all government corporations which
operate as Offices of Public Trust. (*See your “Performance Bond”.)
*********************************************************************************
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE:
(Holding Office in
Insurrection or Rebellion against the Constitution)
TO ALL
REBELLIOUS JUDGES ENGAGED IN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN
VIOLATION OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO “WE THE PEOPLE”, WHO
EMPLOY JUDGES BY CONSENSUAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACT
YOUR OATH OF
OFFICE IS YOUR CONTRACT, AND WE DEMAND THAT YOU OBEY OUR CONSTITUTION!
*********************************************************************************
Here are some marching orders:
Don’t ignore your Oath’s
requirement to be “impartial”.
Don’t fail to call for impeachment
hearings against Judges who have not taken Oregon’s required Oath.
Failure to act puts you in violation of your Oath of Office by
Misprision of Felony.
Failure to act is obstruction of justice.
Failure to act makes you a co-conspirator against the People of this
Nation and State.
Failure to act makes you fair game for a law suit
or a military courts martial. (18 USC 4)
Sir Edward Coke properly stated that the authority of Legislatures
is void and a legal nullity if it acts beyond the boundaries of
the Common Law.
This fundamental principle has been grandfathered
into our American and Oregon Constitutions.
If legislators or
others conspire to enforce a Jurisdiction over “We the People” which is
beyond the boundaries of the Constitution, said conspirators may be
tried, convicted, arrested and punished with “whatever force is
necessary”.
HOW TO TELL IF A JUDGE IS BIASED:
Ask the Judge:
1. Did you take Oregon’s constitutionally required
Oath of Office?
2. Do you intend to process this case under the
original Oregon Constitution?
3. Judge, will you sign this contract
agreeing to uphold all of my rights?
4. Your Honor, I am not ready to
proceed until said contract is signed.
RIGHTS HAVE THEIR BASIS IN
AND ARISE FROM RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR!!
DO YOU WANT TO GO INTO A
COURT WHERE YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS?
TThese documents are not for vindictive reasons or for purposes of
vexatious litigation, but because every citizen has a civil duty to
arrest civil and criminal misbehavior with “reasonable diligence” [42
U.S.C. 1986; 18 U.S.C. 241, 242], and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances when the private agencies which that government
commissions become renegade or treasonous.
The purpose of this
section relating to trial judge’s disqualification because of personal
bias or prejudice is to secure for all litigants a fair and impartial
trial before a court/tribunal completely divested of any personal bias
and it is the duty of all courts to scrupulously adhere to such
admonition and to guard against any appearance of personal bias.
Mitchell v. U.S., C.C.A.N.M.1942, 126 F.2d 550 certiorari denied 62 S.Ct.
1307, 316 U.S. 702, 86 L.Ed. 1771, rehearing denied 65 S.Ct. 855, 324
U.S. 887, 89 L.Ed. 1436.
This policy underlying this section is
that the courts of the United States shall not only be impartial in
controversies submitted to them, but shall give assurance that they are
impartial. Whitaker v. McLean, 1941, 118 F.2d 596, 73 App.D.C. 259.
(That assurance begins with the required oath to be impartial).
All Power is inherent in the People, the true Government, and in our
elected representatives in Salem who work for us! Inform them what they
are supposed to do. Evil prevails when good people do nothing.
Without an honest judicial system, Oregon can have no economic Freedom,
and your life, liberty and property can and will be taken.
We
demand equal justice for all, and no one is above the Law. The judicial
branch is in violation of the Oregon Constitution. STOP being BULLIED
and let’s work together to reclaim our Sovereignty. Remember, the
“HEALING OF OREGON STARTS WITH YOU”!
Write, call and fax your
Governor, Legislators, Representatives and demand that Judges take,
uphold and obey their required Oaths. Your Freedom DEPENDS UPON IT!
REMEMBER YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY WORK FOR YOU.
SUMMARY
From 1857 to 1910, Judges took an Oath to the
original “said state” of Oregon’s 1857-59 Constitution. The mischief
with Oregon’s Constitution was started by Frank W. Benson. He
illegally and unconstitutionally held two offices at the same time,
(Governor, March 1, 1909 through June 17, 1910, and Secretary of State,
from January 15, 1907, to April 14, 1911) which is a violation of
Article III, Distribution of Powers and etc.
Then, in the year of 1910, the original Article VII of the
Constitution of Oregon State 1857 was supplanted through the
unconstitutional use of the Article IV “Initiative Petition” process and
the unconstitutional Article VII (amended) Measure 362-363, of the
Oregon State Constitution.
“We the People” are adversely affected by changing the constitutional
judicial system that We had established. The purported adoption of
Measure 362-363 was not valid; and it may not properly be made a part of
the original 1857 Oregon Constitution.
The Secretary of State of
the State of Oregon (who was also illegally the Governor at the same
time) did not have an abstract of votes on file for the general election
of November 8, 1910. It cannot be verified whether Measure 362-363
was approved or disapproved by the voters in 1910.
Measure
362-363, of the November, 1910 general election, made monumental
revisions of Oregon constitutional provisions and statutes.
Measure 362-363 purports to the amendment of Article VII (original) of
the Oregon State Constitution by first abolishing and disbanding the
entire Judicial Department of the state of Oregon that was established
by the Oregon State Constitution that was ratified by an Act of Congress
in 1859, and supplanting in its stead a Judicial Department of the State
of Oregon whose judicial power is centralized in one supreme court and
in such other courts created by law.
Measure 362-363 also
purports that the new supreme court can, in its own discretion, take
original jurisdiction, in mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus
proceedings. Under Article VII (original), this jurisdiction was
exclusively vested in the circuit courts and county courts, as the
supreme court of 1859 only had jurisdiction to revise the final
decisions of the circuit courts. In other words, this enabled the
new Supreme Court to throw out whatever laws or judgments it chose and
substitute its own ideas, making law “from the bench”.
Measure
362-363 also tampers with the Oregon State Petit and Grand jury system
and procedures, and purports to abolish the joint Executive and
Legislative constitutional authority to remove judges of the Supreme
Court and prosecuting attorneys, effectively setting them beyond any
restraint of their actions, no matter how outrageous.
The Oregon
State Constitution limits amendment through the initiative process to a
single subject and matters properly connected therewith per initiative
measure. Measure 362-363 encompasses more than one subject and matters
properly connected therewith.
Article XVII, Section 2 of the
Oregon State Constitution requires that any revision to the Oregon State
Constitution must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature
before it can be submitted to the electors for their vote.
Measure 362-363 caused a fundamental restructuring of one third, (1/3),
of the government in Oregon State and revises numerous statutory and
constitutional provisions and is therefore a revision to the Oregon
State Constitution. Because it was not submitted to the electors
following a two-thirds vote of the legislature, Measure 362-363 and
Article VII (amended) are invalid.
Article IV, Section 4 of the
United States Constitution, the Guaranty Clause, guarantee each state to
have a republican form of government. Certain uses of the initiative
process violate the Guaranty Clause. The Guaranty Clause prohibits the
use of the initiative power to cause a fundamental restructuring of
government, i.e. a substantial departure from a separation of powers
structure.
Measure 362-363 fundamentally restructures the entire
state and local Judicial branch of government in Oregon State. It
mandates such a substantial departure from a separation of powers
structure that “We the People” are left at their State and local county
level with no constitutionally created Article VII (original)
court in which to commence or defend actions that have a direct and
profound effect upon “We the People’s” rights that are guaranteed and
protected by the Constitution of the United States, including but not
limited to, their 5th Amendment right not to be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.
In lieu thereof,
“We the People” are left at the State and local county levels to the
mercy of the legislatively supplanted Article VII (amended) judicial
department through the constitutionally questionable use of the Article
IV initiative petition process, which can not be substantiated by an
official abstract of votes of the electors of the Oregon State
pertaining thereto, who as a legislatively created entity pursuant to
Article III, Section 1, the separation of powers clause of the
Constitution of Oregon State, cannot exercise the official duties and
functions of the Judicial Department ordained by the Constitution of
Oregon State 1859, especially when such duties and functions require a
constitutional judicial decision and/or interpretation on an act of the
legislative and/or executive, including the administrative departments
of the Oregon State government. Therefore Measure 362-363 violates the
Guaranty Clause and is invalid.
Measure 362-363 violates Article
IV, section 1 (2) (d) of the Oregon State Constitution that was ratified
by an Act of Congress in 1859, and therefore is not valid.
Measure 362-363 is a constitutional revision, and under Article
XVII, section 2 of the Oregon State Constitution of 1859 supra, not a
constitutional amendment, and therefore, was not validly enacted. Where
there is no official recorded abstract of votes to support and/or
substantiate that the electors of Oregon State enacted Measure 362-363,
the supplanting of Article VII (original) with the implementation of
Article VII (amended) of the Oregon State Constitution therefore is
invalid.
Measure 362-363 violates Article IV, section 4 of the
United States Constitution, and therefore is invalid.
The
supplanted Article VII of the Oregon State Constitution vitiates the
entire Judicial Department of State government wherein “We the People”
are routinely deprived of their vested rights, liberty and property
without due process and equal protection of the law.
Now, “We the
People” have a problem when unconstitutional Judges are not taking
Oregon’s required Oath, Article VII, (original) Section 21, or Oregon ’s
Oath, Article VII (amended) Section 7 “this state”. These Judges are
committing treason against Oregon’s Constitution.
OATH &
AFFIRMATIONS
1. An oath is an affirmation of truth of a
statement, which renders one willfully asserting untrue statements
punishable for perjury.
2. An oath is a pledge, the security of
which is found in the character, integrity and the fidelity of the
declarer.
3. An oath is a solemn attestation of truth or
inviolability of what is said to one legally authorized to acknowledge
affiant’s signature and declaration.
4. An oath is, in itself,
an affirmation or declaration to tell the truth.
5. An oath is
an external pledge or asseveration made in verification of statements
made, or to be made, coupled with an appeal to a sacred or venerated
object, in evidence of the serious and reverent state of mind of the
party, or with an invocation to a Supreme Being to witness the words of
the party, and to visit him with punishment if they be false.
Milton Everett, Mitchek,
The Author is available with numerous certified documents as a witness regarding the above publication and more.
Milton Everett, Mitchek,
P.O. Box 138
Durkee, Oregon 97905
What Is A Judge’s Oath?
A Judges Oath/Oath of Office is a
contract, an agreement with the people and public policy.
An Oath
is a statement or assertion made under penalty of divine retribution for
intentional falsity.
An Oath of Office is fealty to a sovereign, the obligation of public
office and the ethical obligation of the Oath.
The ethical
obligations of learned professions are all assumed by their Oath/Oath of
Office that shall be taken word for word, comma for comma, exactly as
required in the Constitution.
One of the principal functions of
the Notary Public is administering the Oath/Oath of Office and the Oath
is what judges are insured and bonded to uphold.
Further, if the
judge has served in the U.S. military, then he/she has taken an
Oath/Oath of Office under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502, where a he/she
has subscribed to a lifetime Oath, in pertinent part, as follows:
“I__________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same...” Nobody is ever released from this oath, even upon
discharge from military service.
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
1. By Judge failing to take the required Oath/Oath of Office,
the Oath of Office is fraud and the office is vacant.
2.
Moral consequences may not vary with the manner of assuming the Oath but
temporal consequences do turn upon whether the administering officer was
validly empowered and whether the proceeding was properly authorized.
In other words, whoever administers an oath of office to a judge must
have a valid oath of office himself, or the judge’s oath is invalid.
3. Judges who have not taken the required Oath/Oath of Office do
not have the authority to validly administer another Judges Oath/Oath of
Office.
4. Although Politicians and Judges have so cheapened the
Oath/Oath of Office that it gives little assurance against false
testimony, the law nevertheless provides that false testimony under Oath
constitutes the crime of perjury.
5. The failure for Judge
to be impartial is a sufficient objection to his Oath of Office
Contract, on the grounds of public policy. Such a judge has a
direct tendency to induce fraud and malpractice upon the Rights of
others, or the violation or neglect of high public duties.
6. The effects of a Judge who has not taken the
required Oath/Oath of Office and who acts for parties whose interests
are conflicting, is to render all his acts voidable, if not absolutely
void.
7. If a Judge has not taken the required
Oath/Oath of Office, that rebel Judge is assumed to act for his favored
party and he is liable to the unfavored party for a breach of duty, as
he has no duty to represent one party (client) over another party.
8. A rebel Judge must be held to assume all the consequences in
undertaking to act in such a capacity as Judge.
9. When a
Judge favors one party over the other, it is not necessary that there
should have been actual fraud in the procurement of those judgments, in
order that they might be set aside...the rule which forbids the
same attorney from representing both parties in adversary proceedings
rests upon the broad principle of public policy which precludes persons
occupying these fiduciary relations from representing conflicting
interests that may tempt them to disregard duty and lead to injury on
one side or the other.
10. The law will not permit its licensed
attorneys to assume relations that will subject them to this temptation,
upon grounds of public policy, and it is for this reason that an
attorney will not be permitted to represent both sides in any litigated
matter.
11. A Judges duty is to be impartial and is
prohibited from acting for adverse interests.
12. A Court should
be consistent with its own dignity, and with its character and duty of
administering impartial justice.
13. Judges will be paid for their services -- but not for
disservice.
14. All Judges may only hold their office during good behavior
(lawful, patient, dignified, courteous).
15. All Judges
have a duty not to lie, cheat or steal.
16. Everyone is
entitled to equal justice and a fair trial by an impartial Judge.
17. Therefore, any judge who does not comply with his Oath to the
Constitution of the State of Oregon wars against that Constitution and
engages in acts of violation of the Supreme Law of Oregon, that judge is
engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two Oaths of
Office, to support the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the state of Oregon, any judge who has
acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of
treason.
18. Did the Judge in your case use discretionary
power to make error of law, willful misconduct, perversity of will,
intentionally abusive, passion, prejudice, biased, moral delinquency in
violation of his Oath of Office?
19. Therefore, did
the Judge in your case violate one or more of the above? Yes___ No
_____
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court has held
that “if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who
advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers” Von
Kettler et.al. V. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law
which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if
a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as
nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a
recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They
constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such
judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers”. Elliot
v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1878)
The Illinois
Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the
jurisdictional paper presented, its findings that it had the power can
add nothing to its authority,-it had no authority to make that finding.”
The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). When judges have no
legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before
them. They act without any jurisdiction.
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they
enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction),
they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason (see
below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates.
Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action
by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function...it is not a
judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though
the tort occurs in the courthouse”.
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not
follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the
judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S.
Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687
(1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a
manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict
with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case
stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in
his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has
no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United States”. [Emphasis supplied in original]
By law, a judge is a state officer.
NO
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS
Judges have given themselves
judicial immunity for their functions. Judges have no judicial immunity
for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who
perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ministerial duties.
When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion -- he is
then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal
activity for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity
of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who
has been harmed by that judge’s connivance with aiding and abetting
another judge’s criminal activity.
Judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges
become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1.
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
Whereas, as required, in the Oregon
Constitution, the Supreme and Circuit Court Judges have not taken
the required Oath of Office. (See attached Exhibits A
through J-1)
Whereas, as required, there is no State
constitutional remedy for appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. (See
enclosed- Certification of Judges Oath of Office of This State)
Whereas, as required, failure for Judge to take, support and uphold the
State of Oregon’s constitutional Oath of Office of Judge
constitutes the intentional crime of perjury, fraud, error, Error
Juris Nocet, committing acts of extortion, mail fraud, wire fraud, RICO,
willful misconduct in a judicial office where such misconduct bears a
demonstrable relationship to the effective performance of judicial
duties; and willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties; or
generally incompetent performance of judicial duties and other high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Judges shall be impartial and held
accountable when judges are biased. Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court
No. 96-6133 (June 1997).
Therefore, if a judge does not fully
comply with the Constitution, then that judge’s orders are void. In re
Sawer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she
has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
TREASON
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have
jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257
(1821).