That is of course my coined term for the January 6th debacle. You might find the following brain trust chatter entertaining. There is some insight into the geopolitical social engineering. P.S. and this indecision by the DC Appeals court raises the question whether all charged with obstructing the proceeding need to be proven present at the time the Congress adjourned.
Greetings Suitors;
One of the brain trust gathering was there that day and is awaiting sentencing on a plea bargain. We were exploring challenging the Chief Judge and then, the trial judge on SO HELP ME GOD in their oaths. However, the DoJ will not provide these oaths and the trial judge has replaced the Chief Judge, who seems to have resigned or been removed.
Therefore, I get leads on items that may mitigate the severity of the plea bargain. It is not a bargain because he has been required to plea guilty, as is customary without knowing how much this plea will reduce his sentence should he be convicted at trial. In other words he is promised less severe sentencing, but on a naked contract. For example, keeping his plea in place but defaulting the DoJ for not providing oaths of the alleged judicial officers, and even assuming the SO HELP ME GOD deviation will very likely stir the ire of the Court and he will be getting jail time instead of a lightly promised probation and freedom to move out of state with his family. Naked contract.
He brought my attention to a couple joindered criminal appellants/defendants who became violent with DC police.
One has had a charge reversed because he did not arrive until after Congress had adjourned for the emergency. One appeal is upheld because he was present before Congress adjourned for the emergency. I found an interesting passage to overlay on "statute" for "oath of office".
I. Interpretation of § 1512(c)(2)
When interpreting a statute, “we begin by analyzing the statutory language, ‘assuming that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.’” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242, 251 (2010) (cleaned up) (quoting Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 175 (2009)). If a statute’s language is clear, then that language controls. The Supreme Court has explained:
[C]anons of construction are no more than rules of thumb that help courts determine the meaning of legislation, and in interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete.
What I mean is that this same canon of construction might be applied to the YHVH (against enlightenment of the layman class) favoring Sons of God/Cain behind the Capitonym SO HELP ME GOD. Begging the question, Then why change the form of the oath at all?
When I had acquired proper jurisdiction for my $20M Lien (against the State of Colorado) Victor WOLSKI admitted to the deviation but I recognize him saying something quite in coherence with the above canon of construction.
He admits twice in the proceedings, that he has signed a deviant oath of office. His defense for doing so is that it does not matter. He strikes my R4C from the record and "returned" it to me.
Allowing his own oath to be deviant really fails to impress me as taking oaths very seriously. I promised at least one of you the Paul Andrew MITCHELL collection. As time goes by this list becomes obsolete and I find less hits with the current actors.
NOTE FOR CARRIE TRIBE: As the Department of Justice defaults on FOIA Requests to provide oaths, the United States of America testifies.