Unincorporated - Consular Jurisdiction | P.L. 8 Stat.484
PUBLIC NOTICE -Disqualification of Ambiguous Oaths of Office
The Oath of Office is a fundamental aspect of legal and governmental systems, serving as a solemn commitment to uphold duties, responsibilities, and laws. It is defined as any form of attestation by which a person signifies that they are bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. More elaborately, an oath is an external pledge or asseveration, made in verification of statements, coupled with an appeal to a sacred or venerated object, or an invocation to a supreme being to witness the words and inflict punishment if false. It is considered a religious asseveration by which one disavows divine clemency or imprecates divine wrath if the truth is not spoken.
Purpose and Nature of the Oath
The primary purpose of an oath is to firmly bind individuals to speak the truth or make good on promises and contracts out of reverence for a divine being, whose vengeance they imprecate if they deceive. It adds a new force and additional strength to an obligation. In a legal context, an oath is seen as an acceptance of a public offer to serve the public by the discharge of duties and obligations, either through performance or failure. This binds an individual's conscious to an act or to uphold the laws of nature, and failure to honor an oath creates dishonor.
The oath signifies official responsibility and is the best formal evidence of an individual's acceptance of an office. Acceptance of the oath is necessary for the full possession, enjoyment, and responsibility of an office.
Legal Basis and Requirements
The requirement for an Oath of Office is deeply embedded in constitutional and statutory law:
• United States Constitution: Article VI mandates that Senators, Representatives, state legislators, 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 the Constitution. This is considered part of the "Supremacy Clause," highlighting the Constitution's supreme authority.
• President's Oath: The President's oath, outlined in Article II, Section 1, specifically requires them to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Notably, the President is exempted from the general oath requirements that apply to other civil and uniformed service officers.
• General Federal Officers: Title 5, United States Code, Section 3331, prescribes a general oath for most federal officers (except the President), requiring them to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office... So help me God".
• State Constitutions: Numerous state constitutions also include provisions for oaths of office for their officials, such as in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Vermont.
• Not Indispensable: Despite its widespread requirement, the oath is not always an indispensable criterion for public office; an office can exist without it, as the oath is considered a "mere incident".
Administration and Form
The proper administration of an oath is crucial for its validity:
• Authorized Officer: It must be sworn to, or affirmed before, some officer authorized to administer oaths.
• Concurrent Action: There must be "concurrent action on the part of the affiant and an authorized officer," requiring both the notary and the affiant to be present together. An affidavit signed outside the officer's presence, without an oath administered, is not considered "lawful". The affiant must perform "some corporal act" to consciously undertake the obligation.
• Form Adherence: The prescribed form of the oath should be substantially observed, though literal adherence is not always required.
• Writing Requirement: An oath generally does not need to be in writing or subscribed by the affiant unless the law expressly requires it. In some cases, like a legislative deputy, an oath may be taken by writing due to absence.
Types of Oaths and Specific Applications
The sources detail various types of oaths and their specific applications:
• Religious Test Oaths: The Supreme Court has unanimously voided state constitutional provisions requiring belief in God for public office, declaring such requirements to "unconstitutionally invade[] the appellant's freedom of belief and religion". The U.S. Constitution expressly forbids religious tests as qualifications for any office or public trust, and states cannot use religious opinions as a test for office.
• Loyalty Oaths:
◦ Historically, some loyalty oaths were voided as ex post facto laws or bills of attainder.
◦ Oaths requiring candidates to disclaim engaging in attempts to overthrow the government by force or violence, or knowing membership in organizations advocating such, have been sustained.
◦ However, oaths that blanket "knowing but guiltless" membership or offer insufficient opportunities to rebut presumptions of disloyalty have been deemed invalid. For instance, an oath requiring a belief "in the overthrow of the Government... by force or violence" was invalidated if it led to summary dismissal without explanation.
• Professional Oaths: Attorneys, as officers of the court, are required to take an oath of fidelity to the courts and their clients. The requirement for bar applicants to support the Constitution does not infringe their First Amendment rights. However, it is noted that the State Bar of California's bar card does not explicitly print an oath, despite implications in legal code.
• Governmental Roles:
◦ Police Officers are considered Executive Officers who swear an oath to the people to protect lives, property, and uphold the Constitution.
◦ Sheriffs are identified as judicial officers who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, upholding the Law of the Land and Common Law.
◦ Military Oaths: Breach of a military oath is recognized as a criminal offense.
◦ Naturalization Oath: Individuals becoming naturalized U.S. citizens take an oath to renounce foreign allegiance, support the Constitution, and be willing to bear arms or perform national service. This oath can be modified or waived under certain circumstances.
Implications and Consequences of the Oath
The Oath of Office carries significant implications for public officials and the public:
• Public Trust and Fiduciary Duty: Public officers are seen as trustees of the people, exercising delegated power and being accountable to them. Their fiduciary responsibilities are considered no less than those of a private individual.
• Accountability: Officers are bound by their oath and are liable for the consequences when they violate it. They are expected to ensure the safety and security of all American Nationals.
• Consequences of Violation:
◦ Perjury and Treason: Treasonous words in writing can amount to overt acts of treason. Willfully making a false statement under oath constitutes perjury. An officer "incapable of holding any office under the United States" for treason. Federal functionaries who use ungranted powers commit perjury and treason.
◦ Loss of Office: Failure to take a required oath can result in the vacation of an office. Attempts by state officers to enforce unconstitutional statutes can result in them being "stripped of his official character" and subjected to the consequences of individual conduct, as the state cannot grant immunity.
• Validity of Acts: While failure to take an oath may be grounds for forfeiture, it does not necessarily invalidate the officer's acts as to the public, especially if they are acting "de facto". An officer acting under color of an election or appointment, even if the law is later found unconstitutional, may still have their acts considered valid as to third parties.
Challenges and Controversies
The concept of the Oath of Office is not without complexities:
• Ambiguity: The sources acknowledge the "ambiguous nature and character of the Oath(s)" taken by officials, stressing that when words are ambiguous, the interpretation should align with the parties' purpose.
• Corporate vs. Constitutional Allegiance: A concerning question is raised regarding whether elected public officials swear an oath to the "Republican form of government" under the "Constitution for The United States of America" or to a "profit-oriented corporation" known as the "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is suggested that many government employees, knowingly or unknowingly, swear allegiance to a corporate entity.
• Non-existent Oaths: Some sources highlight that despite legal implications, actual oaths may not always be formalized or printed, as seen with the California State Bar card.
• Moral Obligation: There's a debate about whether oaths to carry out unlawful contracts or constitutions hold any moral obligation; it is argued to be immoral to take such oaths and criminal to fulfill them. Grotius's view is mentioned that an oath does not alter the nature or substance of the underlying contract or promise.
• Contextual Interpretation: The meaning of words in an oath may need to be modified over time to avoid absurdity and inconsistency, as language evolves.
In essence, the Oath of Office is a cornerstone of governmental legitimacy and individual accountability, demanding fidelity and adherence to the foundational principles of the state. However, its interpretation and enforcement can be complex, particularly when issues of loyalty, constitutional validity, and the nature of governmental authority are debated.
The wording of public officials' "Oath of Office" varies depending on the specific office and jurisdiction, but generally includes commitments to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge duties.
Here are examples and common elements:
The omissions noted in the "Oath of Office" undertaken by individuals acting as public officials, such as James M.E. Slutz, Mayor of Massillon, (see page 21of the PDF which is can be downloaded from below) are asserted to render the oath ambiguous and invalid, thereby stripping the office of its authoritative substantiality and demonstrating a non-compliance with the U.S. Constitution and treaties, which are considered the supreme law of the land.
Here is an elaboration on the unconstitutional nature and character of these noted omissions:
• Omission of "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
◦ This phrase, typically found in oaths for federal officers (excluding the President), signifies a commitment to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" [U.S. Civil Service Oath, which Mayor Slutz's oath partially mirrors].
◦ The absence of this commitment in Mayor Slutz's oath creates ambiguity, leading to the question of to "who, whom or what is your national 'Allegiance'?".
◦ This omission directly fails to assure "We The People" that the Constitution will be upheld in honor and good faith, and that the undertaker holds allegiance to it. Public officials are generally understood to be trustees of the people and owe a fiduciary duty to the public, exercising their powers for public benefit. The lack of a clear statement of allegiance undermines this fundamental trust.
• Omission of "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;"
◦ This omission is highlighted as a failure to offer "no security for nor to the People".
◦ The inclusion of this phrase would confirm that the oath-taker is acting of their "free will of self, and without a second guess and/or thought, from a competent mind, would be in strict avoidance of evasion of the said obligation".
◦ Without this explicit declaration, the oath is viewed as lacking the necessary constitutional binding to ensure that the official intends to uphold their duties freely and without ulterior motives or evasion. This undermines the very integrity of the commitment to public service.
• Omission of "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."
◦ This absence removes the assurance of the public's "good faith" and "sense of security" regarding the official's performance.
◦ Public officials have a responsibility to "properly, correctly and lawfully discharge" their assignments, carrying out constitutional duties. The omission of this specific pledge implies a potential for malperformance.
◦ If an official fails to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office," it constitutes a violation of their constitutional responsibility. Such malperformance can lead to the official being held personally liable for their actions.
• Ambiguity/Alteration concerning "So help me God"
◦ While framed as an "Alteration" in some contexts, the source primarily views it as an "Ambiguity" and part of the larger issue of "deceptive acts" due to the other significant omissions.
◦ The full oath, including "So help me God," is seen as a sacred commitment. When the preceding clauses are omitted, it is argued that the implicit guarantee shifts from upholding "Supreme Law(s)" to prioritizing "policy".
◦ This suggests that the official's allegiance might be to "profit-oriented corporation[s]" rather than the republican form of government, leading to concerns about their loyalty [Oath of Office document].
Broader Unconstitutional Nature and Character:
These omissions collectively indicate an oath that is "ambiguous" and "invalid," which is asserted to "consciously defeat the character and nature of not only the Constitution for the United States, but the Treaty of Merrekech/Peace and Friendship 1786/1836".
• Subordination of "Colored Laws" to Supreme Law: The U.S. Constitution (1791) and its treaties, like the Treaty of Marrakesh, are explicitly stated to be the "Supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI, Section 2). The Ohio Constitution (1851) and City Ordinances (1985) are subordinate to this supreme law, and the Ohio Revised Code itself acknowledges federal treaty supremacy. By undermining the oath, officials are seen as enforcing "colored or colorable 'law(s)'" that appear valid but lack true legal authority, deriving from private corporate interests rather than supreme law. This alleged enforcement of "corporate statutes" against the "SOVEREIGN public" is deemed "unlawful actions"
.
• Lack of Authoritative Substantiality: Due to these omissions, the office undertaken is asserted to "bear no authoritative substantiality," meaning it lacks true legal and constitutional backing.
• Breach of Trust and Personal Liability: Public officials are considered "trustees of the people". If they act outside their constitutional authority or violate their oath, they are seen as stripping themselves of official character and becoming subject to personal liability for their actions. This is viewed as a "breach of trust".
• Undermining Due Process: The implications of an invalid oath extend to due process concerns, as public officials acting without proper constitutional grounding can deprive individuals of rights without the "process and proceedings of the common law" or adequate judicial oversight. This aligns with criticisms raised in other contexts (e.g., SEC v. Jarkesy) regarding administrative adjudications lacking independent judges and jury trials, and how judicial review is crucial to address due process concerns when executive officials deprive individuals of property.
In summary, the specific omissions in Mayor Slutz's oath, as detailed in the sources, are interpreted as fundamentally compromising the integrity and constitutionality of his role and, by extension, other public officials operating under similarly deficient oaths. This invalidates their authority to enforce laws, particularly those deemed "colored" or inconsistent with the supreme law of the land, and potentially exposes them to personal liability
18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Allodial American National Consulate
Mu'ru Territory, Titicaca Country, Continent of Mu [America] - Turtle Island
PHONE: 1-(740)-602-6162 FAX: 1 (740)-926-6547
Welcome, to the Allodial American National Consulate. Please Subscribe to our website to receive current tribal news and updates.