"By their oaths expressly given or implied by their acceptance and performance of their employment responsibilities, the named agents have certain legal duties that regular citizens do not have."
AND
"The named agents accepted the legal duties of their offices upon receiving their first paychecks, which i…
"By their oaths expressly given or implied by their acceptance and performance of their employment responsibilities, the named agents have certain legal duties that regular citizens do not have."
AND
"The named agents accepted the legal duties of their offices upon receiving their first paychecks, which impliedly constitute oaths of office, if such oaths were not expressly given. The named agents are party to a contract with The People."
The main point is that they are in the position and known they have legal duties. This applies to 16yo lifeguards at a town swimming pool and it darned well applies to these murderers as well. An oath need not be expressed. To take a position that guards the lives of people and to knowingly not act to guard the lives of people is a criminal offense. A crossing guard that not only does not walk out in the street with the hand held stop sign to stop traffic fore elementary school kids, but also tells the kids it is safe to walk out and while a pick-up truck is fast approaching, is responsible for murder, not just involuntary manslaughter. For the crossing guard had a legal duty and not only shirked the duty, but expressed false statements of safety knowing that it was not safe.
See the point here? The actual express oath is a mere formality. The acceptance of the legal duty is the key point. The difficult proof is the state of mind of the CDC agent. You have to prove they acted knowingly. I explain it in the memorandum. They have an excuse of "Ignorance of Fact" perhaps at the present moment. But once they receive the memorandum, they must act on it because they become "knowing" as they are "notified." Subsequent omission of action concurrent with a legal duty to act is the criminal conduct.
She is incorrect. An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, { name }, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....
FOIA requests shows Joe Biden doesn't have a valid Oath of Office on file. For it to be valid, it must be notarized per the FOIA request. He's not the only 1. Kamala Harris along with 15 more appointed cabinet appointees don't have one on file either.
FOIA was created in 1975 to give the public a mechanism for greater transparency & accountability by USG. Oath of Office is sworn publicly it is not contingent on any notary endorsement which is a clerical function to affirm identity of signatories.
Then I'm glad I have this in there,
"By their oaths expressly given or implied by their acceptance and performance of their employment responsibilities, the named agents have certain legal duties that regular citizens do not have."
AND
"The named agents accepted the legal duties of their offices upon receiving their first paychecks, which impliedly constitute oaths of office, if such oaths were not expressly given. The named agents are party to a contract with The People."
The main point is that they are in the position and known they have legal duties. This applies to 16yo lifeguards at a town swimming pool and it darned well applies to these murderers as well. An oath need not be expressed. To take a position that guards the lives of people and to knowingly not act to guard the lives of people is a criminal offense. A crossing guard that not only does not walk out in the street with the hand held stop sign to stop traffic fore elementary school kids, but also tells the kids it is safe to walk out and while a pick-up truck is fast approaching, is responsible for murder, not just involuntary manslaughter. For the crossing guard had a legal duty and not only shirked the duty, but expressed false statements of safety knowing that it was not safe.
See the point here? The actual express oath is a mere formality. The acceptance of the legal duty is the key point. The difficult proof is the state of mind of the CDC agent. You have to prove they acted knowingly. I explain it in the memorandum. They have an excuse of "Ignorance of Fact" perhaps at the present moment. But once they receive the memorandum, they must act on it because they become "knowing" as they are "notified." Subsequent omission of action concurrent with a legal duty to act is the criminal conduct.
She is incorrect. An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, { name }, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....
FOIA requests shows Joe Biden doesn't have a valid Oath of Office on file. For it to be valid, it must be notarized per the FOIA request. He's not the only 1. Kamala Harris along with 15 more appointed cabinet appointees don't have one on file either.
FOIA was created in 1975 to give the public a mechanism for greater transparency & accountability by USG. Oath of Office is sworn publicly it is not contingent on any notary endorsement which is a clerical function to affirm identity of signatories.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1/ALDE_00001126/