Friday, July 18, 2008

Restore the Constitution; Indict Thomas Anderle.



We live in a world where the handicapped are tazered sitting in their wheelchairs; where Americans will be forced to wear an electronic bracelet to travel on a plane; where our conversations are recorded though the phones for which we pay, and where the prison system is viewed as a profit center for government. This should give you pause. As you watch, the banks that held the sweat and earnings of lifetimes are melting down into nothing. Our funds are disappearing into the already bulging coffers of foreigners. It is time to take stock, to look baldly at where we are and consider what it means to be an American.


On the 4th of July you probably watched fireworks, a distraction. Instead, listen as someone reads aloud the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is the mission statement of a people who rejected the idea that government was sovereign, instead fulfilling the vision of a people who governed themselves.


How long has it been since we had an honest election? For how long have you accepted the pablum dished out as patriotism without understanding that being an American means not flags and fireworks but insisting that the power of government remain directly with people?


After years of war those long dead revolutionaries adopted a Constitution intended not to govern them but to strictly limit what government could do in their names. One of the most important safeguards they included was an Oath of Office, to be signed and kept on file for every one of those employed to do the work assigned to government.


Today as many as 90% of those elected to positions of trust ignore that Oath. They have their reasons, and those reasons would incite our Founders to action. They should move us to action as well.


Included with this mailing is a copy of the complaint and demand filed with the District Attorney for Santa Barbara County, Monday July 14th, 2008. The matter to be taken up is the unlawful presence of Thomas Anderle, sitting as a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara. “Judge” Anderle placed on file a truncated Oath of Office, failed to pay for a bond, and otherwise violated the law and the Constitution of the State of California and the U. S. Constitution.


George Bush has said that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. What do you think? How do you feel when you read about another attack on Americans by our own government? If you think the Constitution is just a piece of paper then you are wrong. It is the bulwark intended to protect you from corruption. Today we need to make sure it is fully in force.


On the 4th of July you should have read the Declaration of Independence. Remind yourself what it means to be free and an American. Then read the complaint being filed against Thomas Anderle below. No one can be free unless they free themselves from illusion first.


“”Addendum of Complaint and demand for Grand Jury against Thomas Anderle, sitting unlawfully as a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara.


Cause of Action:


  The Constitution of the State of California requires that an oath be signed
for any elected official to be lawfully in office. Additionally, the official must
provide a bond, paid for by himself. The wording of the Oath of Office is mandated by
law. In California that wording, found in the, “CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 20
MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS is as follows:


"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take
this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties upon which I am about

to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or
organization, political or other wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States
or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately
preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political
or other wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California
by force or violence


or other unlawful means except as follows:
________________________________________________________________

(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office
of ______________


________________________________ I will not advocate nor become
(name of office)
a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the
Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."


 
The Oath of Office was taken very seriously by our Founders. For any elected
official, including all judges, to lawfully occupy an elected office, the Oath
must be signed by a notary and the seal present. Even then the Oath is not binding
if not accompanied by a Bond, paid for by the individual himself. The bond provides
insurance for litigants against corruption or incompetence by the judge. A record of
that bond must be on file and available for public scrutiny. Every litigant should
demand this proof to ensure that the judge is acting lawfully.

Each of these specific requirements must be in place and on file. Failure to fulfill
any of the above is a felony.

In the case of Thomas Anderle, presently sitting on the bench of the Superior Court
in Santa Barbara, the Oath of Office fails all of these requirements. First, it
has been intentionally altered. The second paragraph is missing, entirely excised.
On this alone Anderle is occupying the office of judge unlawfully. But there is more.


The document has at the top “corrected” and this poses the question of why such a
notation would have been made and, given the many discrepancies with the document,
what the word, “corrected,” was intended to explain.

The evidence is a copy of the Oath on file. (see copy reproduced on the last page).


The Oath is itself evidence of a felony. Anderle is guilty, caught in the act.

A copy of this complaint is being sent to the media, both in Santa Barbara and
nationally and to the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California
and to all Federal officials who are required by their own Oaths to take action
in the matter. Anderle had been elected to positions of trust by the legal
community, bringing into question their honor and judgment as well. Since the
rectitude and honor of the entire system must now be in question it is essential
that this inquiry be open to the greatest possible scrutiny.

That this has been allowed to take place must, necessarily, bring much more into
question.

The lack of the Oath of Office, a simple requirement intended to ensure compliance
with the Code of California, the State Constitution and the Constitution of the
United States, has effectively removed accountability for all decisions rendered.
No one whose career has been in law can argue ignorance, the facts and bald, glaring.
The next question is whether or not Anderle altered the oath and failed to post his
bond because he had reason to fear he would be opened up for other charges. Since
the part of the Oath Anderle removed was included in the second paragraph it is
reasonable to consider the content of that section for indications of what he
intended to evade. That section reads,

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence.”


Excising the part of the Oath that makes it actionable to be a member of a party or
organization that advocates the overthrow of the government by means political or
otherwise, brings Anderle's motives into critical focus. The Grand Jury should
scrutinize every part of Anderle's life and that of his family and professional
associates and clients.

However, some matters leave no doubt Thomas Anderle, has never been lawfully on
the bench of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara, this being his second term, many
cases have been decided; Therefore all decisions rendered in every case must be
deemed vacated. All litigants who came before him must be notified immediately.
At a minimum all cases need to be relitigated. The costs and damages for this
fall strictly and entirely on Anderle and on those who were derelict in their
duty, acting under color of law. Anderle as an individual and those others who
ignored their duty must be held accountable, not the taxpayers. The proof here
presented is irrefutable.

The Grand Jury must be called; an investigation undertaken. The oaths of all
officials involved must be examined. Are their own Oaths in order?

Failure to act in this instance is, itself, actionable.

The Supreme law of the United States is the Constitution. In California it
resides in the State Constitution. Ultimately, the government in all of its
parts resides in the people; when the honor of any part of the institutions
elected by the people are in question, the power to change it is theirs.

This matter goes beyond one rogue judge to questions for which the people must have

answers; That accounting must be rendered.””

It is time that we, the people, examined every Oath of Office by every judge
and other official. It is time for the accounting to begin.

Benjamin Franklin said this, “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” What you do now
will tell your children and grandchildren if you, yourself, deserved freedom -
and it will determine everything about their future.

No comments: