Jurors oaths in NC 50 states and US, NC Senate Bill 528, Lt. Col Donald Sullivan Constitutionalists victory, NC Senator Thom Goolsby, Constitution of North Carolina
“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for through this in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”…George Washington
From retired Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan July 10, 2013.
“You all remember my ranting about the improper jurors’ oaths in NC, the fifty States and the United States. I brought the issue up with Senator Thom Goolsby last year. He got excited about it and said he would be sure it was addressed the next session of the General Assembly which just happened to be this past spring. He did as he said he would do, and the results are attached. It’s time to celebrate this major victory!! Senate Bill 528 is no doubt the most important piece of legislation passed this session, and nothing was said about it. I only found out today!!!
Now, if we can just get a criminal attorney to go back and appeal the trial in his defendant’s case on the grounds that there was no jury, this will be a complete success. The defendant who comes to mind is Thomas Wright, former State representative. Every convicted defendant who demanded his jury trial must be either set free or given a new trial. What a wonderful day for us Constitutionalists!!!”
“GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION LAW 2013-164
SENATE BILL 528
AN ACT TO CLARIFY THAT PETIT JURORS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE THE OATH SET FORTH IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION AND TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE STATUTES SETTING FORTH THE OATHS TO BE TAKEN BY PETIT JURORS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 9-14 reads as rewritten:
“§ 9-14. Jury sworn; judge decides competency.
The clerk shall, at the beginning of court, swear all jurors who have not been selected as grand jurors. Each juror shall swear or affirm that he will take (i) the oath required by Section 7 of Article VI of the Constitution of North Carolina, by swearing or affirming to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith and (ii) the oath required under G.S. 11-11, by swearing or affirming
to truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in criminal or civil actions that come before him the juror and render give true verdicts according to the evidence. Nothing herein shall be construed to disallow the usual challenges in law to the whole jury so sworn or to any juror; and if by reason of such challenge any juror is withdrawn from a jury being selected to try a case, his place on that jury shall be taken by another qualified juror. The
presiding judge shall decide all questions as to the competency of jurors.”
SECTION 2. G.S. 11-11 reads as rewritten:
“§ 11-11. Oaths of sundry persons; forms.
The oaths of office to be taken by the several persons hereafter named shall be in the words following the names of said persons respectively, in all cases after taking the separate oath required by Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina:
Oath for Petit Juror
You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God.
SECTION 3. This act becomes effective October 1, 2013, and applies to oaths
taken on or after that date.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 11th day of June,
s/ Daniel J. Forest
President of the Senate
s/ Thom Tillis
Speaker of the House of Representatives
s/ Pat McCrory
Approved 4:28 p.m. this 19th day of June, 2013”
An email from Mr. Sullivan June 16, 2013.
“ARTICLE FOR JULY: JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY and the IRS
When I started out in 1999 to learn about how the Godforsaken government works in the United States, I sincerely believed in the separation of powers and that I could get at least one of the three branches of government to see the light and right the wrongs that were being perpetrated against me in the interest of the “public safety” and the “general welfare”. I believed that I had rights, and I could use those rights to convince the government and its “myriad of offices” and “swarms of agents” to leave me alone. I was wrong.
I first tried to influence my elected “representatives” in the legislative branch by informing and educating them on the threat we faced regarding our lost rights and how the laws were being improperly enforced by the executive and judicial branches. This effort fell on deaf ears. I have since rescinded my voter registration in full understanding of the uselessness of trying to right the wrongs by the ballot box and recognizing that there is no “right to vote”.
I then worked with the executive branch thru the governor, the Attorney General, local and State law enforcement, the district attorney (a curious mixture of the executive and judicial branches) and the Sheriff to help them understand how the law was being improperly enforced against us with the sole intent of abusing and eliminating our protected rights. In this endeavor, I often placed myself in harm’s way by getting ticketed, arrested and worse as a means of getting my message out. Another failure.
That led, of course, to the judicial branch, which I absolutely believed would do its duty to protect and maintain the law and my rights under the law. As reported previously, I was totally disappointed, but along the way learned about the “judicial conspiracy” to prolong and encourage the insidious and incremental destruction of our protected rights. Judges are, after all, employees of the state. Thus, anytime the state is a party to a case, judges have a conflict of interest which cannot be denied; and they will nearly always defer to the state. There will be no impartiality on the part of the judiciary, and we can’t get a fair trial. This conspiracy is nowhere more obvious than in the matters of revenue.
You may recall from a previous article one Judge Marion Warren, a Brunswick County, NC, State Judge involved in a “right to travel” case. In our discussion of invalid jurors’ oaths, he initially agreed with me that jurors were improperly sworn and even apologized for the mistake. After over a year of being impossible to reach, he reversed and confided in me that it turns out jurors are not parties to the group mentioned in the statute “as required” to swear an oath to the Constitution when, in fact, the law specifically identifies jurors as requiring the constitutional oath. When I pressed him further on the issue of the “right to travel” where licenses, titles, tags, registrations, etc. are unnecessary, he admitted jokingly that, “No judge is going to disrupt the revenue stream in North Carolina.”
When that “revenue stream” is the IRS, the judicial conspiracy really takes off. Nowhere is it more evident than in adjudication of income tax issues. For example, in the widely known case, Sullivan v. United States, 03CV39 (2003) where I was trying to prevent or stop the fraudulent Iraq “War”, Senior Federal District Court Judge James C. Fox, in an effort to rationalize Congress’ attitude that the “Constitution has been overwhelmed by events and by time”, stated the following on the record:
“I will say I think, you know, Colonel, I have to tell you that there are cases where a long course of history in fact does change the Constitution, and I can think of one instance, I believe I’m correct on this, I think if you were to go back and try to find and review the ratification of the 16th amendment, which was the internal revenue, income tax, I think if you went back and examined that carefully you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment; and, nonetheless, I think it’s fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don’t think any court would ever, would set it aside. Well, I’ve seen that – I’ve seen somewhere a treatise on that, and I think it was — I think I’m correct in saying that actually the ratification never really properly occurred. Yet nonetheless, I’m sure no court’s going to say that the 16th amendment permitting income tax is void for any reason, although I wouldn’t mind filing for a rebate myself.”
He was right. Since then, the courts have ruled that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified when the evidence, which was not allowed to be presented, indicated the exact opposite. This phenomenon is known as “legal memory”, or the “everybody knows” syndrome.
Like the way IRS itself was apparently created, or at least validated, by the courts: “We can all agree the Department of the Treasury is created at 31 U.S.C. Section 301(a) by Congress” (See Hoodenpyle, 461 Fed. Appx. at 682). The Tenth Circuit went on to say that “the IRS is an agency of the United States” as a matter of well settled law, citing 5 U.S.C. Section 101; but the words “Internal Revenue Service” do not appear at Section 101. It is true the Department of Treasury is listed at Section 101. But the IRS is not.
There also appears to be no doubt that the IRS has a planned program to keep judges in line in tax related cases with their “attitude adjustment” program defined in February, 1973, by IRS’ Western Regional Commissioner Homer O. Croasmun, in a Memorandum which included the minutes of the meeting held on February 9, 1973 pertaining to the “Tax Rebellion Movement”. The memo, now known as the “Croasmun Memorandum”, opened the door to the realization that a planned program was already in operation to infiltrate and destroy the tax patriot movement and to implement an attitude adjustment on federal judges. From those minutes we find,
“Mr. Croasmun pointed out that seven months ago we changed our direction on Tax Rebellion cases from a defensive posture and have now seized the initiative by infiltration of their organizations so we now know in advance their plans before they execute them.”
“Mr. Hansen [Chief of IRS Intelligence from Los Angeles] commented on the problem of federal judges appearing to be anti-IRS based on the belief that IRS is ‘highhanded’.”
“Mr. Howard [Chief of IRS Intelligence from San Francisco] reported on a change of attitude of federal judges inSan Francisco after he met with a number of them and discussed the gravity of the Tax Rebellion Movement and the importance of giving prison sentences as deterrents.”
This “attitude adjustment” is continuing today. It is mentioned in the IRS’ System of Records, specifically in their “Case Management and Time Reporting System, Criminal Investigation Division” – Treasury/IRS 46.002, which can be found in the Federal Register by searching the Privacy Act Issuances Compilation for the Treasury/IRS, available on line through the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C. 20408.
In this system of records, under the sub-heading “Categories of Individuals Covered by the System”, are listed the “Subjects of Criminal Investigation Division Investigations, U.S. Attorneys, Special Agents, and U.S. District Court Judges”. Under other sub-headings is stated:
“This system of records may not be accessed for purposes of determining if the system contains a record pertaining to a particular individual”; “This system of records contains investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes whose sources need not be reported”; and, “This system has been designated as exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.”
We know this conspiracy is happening because the judges have told us. Take a look at what Judge Wyzanski said in Lord v. Kelley, 240 F. Supp. 167 at 169 (1965):
“When this court found that the Internal Revenue agents had violated the law and directed that the improperly seized records were to be returned, the agents were, to say the least, not happy. The original appearance in this Court by counsel for the Government was, if not insolent, at least none too respectful. The brief filed following the Court’s adverse decision asking for reconsideration thereof showed more than hurt feelings and came close to being worthy of a rebuke.”
“More than once, the judges of a court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth, the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective.”
Though truthful, Judge Wyzanski may have been a bit naïve. He was obviously not aware that this was not just a casual happening on the part of the IRS. And neither was he aware of the federal judges like Judge Harry Claiborne in Nevada, who dared to cross the IRS, was prosecuted and jailed; or Judge Walter Nixon in Mississippi, who was prosecuted for perjury, but had acted as an IRS pimp and was not jailed; or Judge Alcee Hastings of Florida who, having a habit of coming in conflict with the IRS and the powers that be, was prosecuted and found innocent, but later impeached by Congress.
Having knowledge of this judicial conspiracy, we may be able to use it to our own advantage. Judges are required to be “impartial” and act as a mere referee. In 1971, Justice Thurgood Marshall, in the Supreme Court case of Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 at 502, said:
“Moreover, even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, this Court has held that due process is denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or the appearance of bias. This rule was well established long before the right to jury trial was made applicable in state trials and does not depend on it. As this court said in In Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 at 136 (1955), ‘(f)airness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.’”
We now know that judges cannot be impartial in an income tax case or any case where the IRS is a party. Knowing this, we can and should demand recusal of any judge who files and pays income tax, because he cannot be impartial, if for no other reason than the attitude that, “If I have to file and pay income tax, so do you.” In the case of a judge who, for whatever reason, does not pay income tax, challenge him on whether the IRS has compromising information on him.
The United States relies upon judicial conspiracy to allow the government to usurp well established federal law by saying the law is something else. Life-tenured federal judges are the most powerful public officers in the whole American government. They are unaccountable and, consequently, without risk. They engage in wrongdoing so coordinated, routine, and widespread as to have turned it into the institutionalized modus operandi of the Federal Judiciary, a safe haven for their wrongdoing.”