Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bonds. Show all posts

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Obligations of Citizenship in America

Obligations of Citizenship in America


Loyalty Oath and Bond


An array of provisions in constitutions and laws require public officers and employees to swear oaths to support the constitution, and in some cases to qualify for and perform the duties of the office.  Consider the following prominent oath obligations.

----- ***** -----

US Constitution Article VI Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, 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 this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

4 USC § 101 - Oath by members of legislatures and officers 

 

Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: “I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” 

 
Florida Constitution Article II Section 5. Public officers.—

(a) No person holding any office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil office of emolument under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of honor or of emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold another office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission, taxation and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or statutory body having only advisory powers.

(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of   (title of office)   on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.”,

and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until a successor qualifies.
(c) The powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county officers shall be fixed by law.

Florida Statute 876.05 Public employees; oath.

(1) All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning, except candidates for federal office, are required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form:

I,  , a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of   and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.
 
(2) Said oath shall be filed with the records of the governing official or employing governmental agency prior to the approval of any voucher for the payment of salary, expenses, or other compensation.

 ------ ***** -----





Does an Oath Constitute a Bond?

The US Constitution mistakenly implies that an oath binds a person.  The Florida Constitution requires public officers to swear an oath of loyalty and "give bond as required by law." So apparently an oath does not bind a person, but a money bond might, if the Legislature decides to require it.

Unswearing Oaths in Advance - Kol Nidrei

In the face of all these oaths, we find that some groups of people encourage the foreswearing (advance unswearing) of future oaths.  Take for example the Kol Nidrei which all devout Jews declare as part of the Yom Kippur observation at every September's end (English equivalent of Aramaic text):

"All vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konams and konasi and any synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear, or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves, •from the previous Day of Atonement until this Day of Atonement and ...• ♦from this Day of Atonement until the Day of Atonement that will come for our benefit.♦ Regarding all of them, we repudiate them. All of them are undone, abandoned, canceled, null and void, not in force, and not in effect. Our vows are no longer vows, and our prohibitions are no longer prohibitions, and our oaths are no longer oaths."

Wikipedia explains how this has bothered non-Jews for centuries:

"The Kol Nidrei prayer has been used by non-Jews as a basis for asserting that an oath taken by a Jew may not be trusted. Historically, this accusation was leveled so often and so persistently that many non-Jewish legislators considered it necessary to have a special form of oath administered to Jews ("Oath More Judaico"), and many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer. As early as 1240 in the Disputation of Paris, Yechiel of Paris was obliged to defend Kol Nidrei against these charges. The Russian government, in 1857, decreed that the prayerbooks must include, as an introduction to Kol Nidrei, a Hebrew explanation to the readers of the limited nature of the vows that could be released by this ceremony."



Who Needs an Oath Bond in Florida?

Apparently, the sovereign citizens from whom all government sovereignty flows in Florida have decided to ignore the Kol Nidrei declaration and similar declarations by others.  They have let the Legislature decides who has to have a bond.  Florida Statutes require a bond for sheriffs and their deputies, tax collectors, public service commissioners, clerks, and others who handle money or property.  No statute requires a bond for judges.  Florida's government "self-insures."  The Risk Manager for the CFO backs the financial risk of judges, probably because judges have conferred immunity on themselves.

No law punishes a public employee's violation of loyalty oaths except by virtue of statutes, rules, and regulations forbidding specific behaviors that might or might not constitute oath violations.  It's a dice-roll. 

Does the Loyalty Oath Really Matter?

As a consequence of the idea that an oath constitutes a bond, the judges need no bond, and that the law ignores Kol Nidrei and similar declarations, oaths mean pretty much nothing, except in the minds of those who swear them.  And that probably explains why Florida's constitution and laws require judges to swear no 6 oaths to become functioning judges.  They include the  bar oath, elector oath, candidate oath, candidate loyalty oath, public officer oath, and public employee oath.  In 2008 the Florida Supremes ruled that the public officer oath constitutes compliance with all oath statutes for judges - they stand above the fiat of law.

Moreover, you might have noticed the words "and Government" in the foregoing oath text.  By swearing to support governments, the public officer promises to ignore the Constitution because loyalty to a government official who has gone rogue constitutes loyalty to an enemy of the Constitution.  Loyalty to Government means loyalty to people in government, not to the ideals of good government.  Such language creates and perpetuates the "good old boys network" that all Citizens rightly despise and fear.

Take heart, though.  Among Florida's loyalty oaths, only the Public Officer's oath has such idiotic language.  As you can see above, the public employee oath in Florida Statute 876.05 and officer's oath mandated by the US Constitution and 4 USC 101 do not contain that language.

We all should realize that we reduce the need for oaths when the voters elect honorable people for government and demand oversight with tools to toss oath violators.


The Bottom Line of Loyalty Oath Enforcement


WE THE PEOPLE have to FORCE people in government to behave constitutionally.  When they don't, we start a gradient approach to creating enough displeasure in them to overcome their flippant disregard for and make them adhere to the Constitutions of the US and State. 

The "gradient?"  Figuratively, we look over at the drawer where the book of matches rests, then back at them.  If that doesn't get their attention, we walk over to the drawer and put our hand on the drawer handle.  If that doesn't get it, we pull the drawer open and look into it, then back at them.  If that doesn't work, we proceed step by step till we have them boiling in a giant cauldron of soup.  Then, in front of all the other public officers, we pull out our silver spoons and eat the ones in the cauldron.  That's the ONLY way to do it that make sense.  Heads on a pike in full public view, so to speak.

In order for us to become competent at the job of exhibiting the sovereignty of citizenship, we must put wise and competent governors in place, watch them like a hawk, and boil those who attempt or usurp power we did not give them.  

We Must Study to Become Good Citizens


In order to understand whether public employees violate their loyalty oaths to support constitutions, and find out how to hold them accountable, we must set out on a course of study.  We must learn the ideals of good government through history studies, then the constitutions, then the nomination and election process, then the court system, then litigation practice, then the rules of court procedure and evidence code, then relevant laws and court rulings. 

We Must Observe and Talk to Government Employees


One cannot control what one does not monitor.  Therefore we must watch public employees, particularly elected and appointed officers, like a hawk.  And we must communicate to them our pleasure or displeasure with their performance.

Of course we must recruit our family members and fellows, and teach them the same. 

Political Activism:  Not An Option


And above all, we must become politically active - learning about politicians, encouraging good people with good knowledge and sense to run, preventing the evil ones from getting elected, and kicking out those who do a bad job in government.  We must run to support those whom government employees have abused under color of law, INVESTIGATE to learn whether abuse occurred, and ACTIVATE to excise the abuse and abuser from Government.

Constitution Tweaking Required


A Constitution must serve the ideals of good government AND evolution of civilization.  And we must realize that those who went before us probably put wrong things in the Constitution.  So, we must tweak our Constitution to remove its bad elements and put better ones in. 

For example, our Constitutions grant suffrage to utterly irresponsible people, and that simply must change in order to create and maintain a great republic.  We cannot let children, indigents, the stupid, the abysmally ignorant, and recipients of welfare vote.  Only the smart, self-sufficient, industrious, educated, and responsible Citizens should have the right to vote. 

We must not permit businesses and governments to contact, lobby, support, or campaign for elected and appointed public officers.  We must police the election process to make and keep it fair and honest.  We must re-empower the non-government grand juries, impanel them with well-educated, responsible voters, and establish mechanisms for them to investigate and indict public officers for crimes and malfeasance, and establish extra-government trials of those indicted.   We must eliminate abusive taxation, deficit spending, participation of the bar and its members in government, and all forms of sovereign immunity.  We must restore the voice of state legislatures in the federal government, via the US Senate. We must strip of all government authority and money those in and out of government who violate their loyalty oaths   And we must insist that schools teach all of the above principles to children as part of the standard public education.

The Critical Importance of Civilization Citizenship


I consider the above as the minimum obligations of American Citizenship.  But our public obligation does not stop there.  We also must work to reform and improve the American Civilization.  We ought to find ways to improve the quality of our gene pool by dramatic reduction of the number of people with IQ below 85, who cannot graduate from high school.  Presently upwards of 85 million people in the USA suffer with the affliction of such low intelligence that they simply cannot compete for good jobs and mates, and they ultimately become a serious public burden. 

We need to overhaul the public education system so that it matriculates responsible, well-educated or well-trained adults, ready for immediate and productive employment. We should require our low-intelligence children to attend special schools that teach academics to the 7th grade and them put the students into apprenticeship programs where they learn a trade or simple productivity that does not frustrate them.  The system should educate the smarter students all the way to PhD levels if they have the aptitude.  And the schools should balance academics with practical work in school factories and farms where they make their own food, clothing, furniture, and computers, selling the excess into the community.  Schools should run 11 hours a day 6 days a week 11 months a year, and teachers should work 3 12-hour days per week and go on sabbatical every 7th year.  All students tutor junior students. Schools give no homework, allow no soda pop, candy, or junk food, and feed the children breakfast and lunch of raw, fresh, organic nuts, grains, fruits, berries, and vegetables daily. The system should rate students and teachers based on statistical performance, and post the results publicly for all to see and understand.

I won't go into the myriad problems the above education model would solve, as anyone with common sense should intuitively imagine them.

Conclusion - Get Off Your Butt


The USA's founders did not sit on their butts and leave government up to others.   They wanted to, of course.  But the king's abuses rose to the level of intolerability, and the colonists had to rise up against those abuses.  The leaders, fortunately, did not wait to get an education in the basics till it had become too late.  Today's Americans, however, have waited.  Most haven't a clue about the ideals of good government, or of law.  Many ignore the political process.

To all of you, I say "Get off your butt!"  Get the necessary education now, become politically active along the ideals of good government.  If you see a problem, get busy and correct it.  Work to improve our nation and civilization.  Don't expect the next guy to do it because he might be a Communist or Fundamentalist Muslim, both of whom want to destroy our republics.

If you don't do this, WHO WILL?



--
- no title specified


Bob Hurt
Home Page – Blog – Email -      Donate (Now)
Mobile:   +1 (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70  -  Clearwater, FL 33763
Law Studies:  
Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter  Archive
Learn to Litigate:  Buy and Study  
Jurisdictionary

     WARNING.  Bob Hurt does NOT practice law, give legal advice, or function as a licensed counselor and attorney at law.  Construe comments as conjecture or education, and NOT as legal advice.  Consult an honest, qualified attorney on all questions of law.



Monday, August 06, 2007

Is Your Word Your Bond? Are Some Lies Good?

One of my associates mused as follows in response to the comments about Federal Judges’ oaths:

“Is not a bond the same as an oath?
“If my word is my bond am I not pledging my oath by virtue of my word (bond)?”

Before tackling these conundrums, let us review the meaning of "bond."  A bond binds a person to a commitment, such as a promise to appear in court, or to perform some service.  People generally know that they cannot trust a person's promise to behave in some particular way because people have short memories and they tend to change their mind as time goes by.  

Therefore, folks, particularly those in business and government, devised a method of enforcing a bond.  They demanded that the bonded person forfeit something of value in the event of breaking the promise and forsaking the bonded act.  The item(s) of value include cash, land, or other chattel or realty. Specialty insurance companies or bonding agencies provide the bonding service for individuals who do not have sufficient assets to satisfy the bond requirement.  

The most popular of these:  bail bondsmen.  These agents put up the full amount of the bond, say $10,000, and charge a 10% fee to the bonded individual, promising the court that the individual will appear in court at the appointed time and date.  If the bonded individual fails to appear, the bail bondsman will hunt him down, capture him, and bring him before the court so as not to have to forfeit the bond amount. 

Similarly, other bonding agencies charge a fee to public officers who must provide government with a performance or surety bond to guarantee that they will do their public officer duties honorably. Florida law requires that sheriffs, deputies, tax collectors, comptrollers, county clerks, and public service commissioners provide property or performance bonds in order to get and keep their jobs.

Interestingly, important though it seems, no law requires a person swearing a loyalty oath to provide a bond guaranteeing performance according to the oath (to support the Constitution of the US and the State).  Instead, the act of swearing the oath, with a "so help me God" at the end, seems to serve as the only bond.  The bond is the "word" of the oath swearer.

The Value of Constitutional Loyalty Oaths

I don’t think it much matters whether an oath stands equivalent to the bond of your word. Men and women generally revered God in the days of yore. They swore an oath in God’s name, or they just swore it. The oath meant something, and it thereby bound them to perform accordingly. Why? Because they feared that God would smite or punish them somehow if they violated the oath. Or they feared public censure that could jeopardize life in a relatively small community.

Nowadays, you can’t trust people, particularly those in government, to care about, honor, or even believe in God. And if they say they do, you can’t trust them to mean they believe they have made a commitment to operate righteously as God does. They typically justify unrighteous behavior by saying “Hey, nobody’s perfect.”

Furthermore, the law obliges all who would vote or take government employment swear a "loyalty" oath to support the Constitution of the USA, and (for state employment) of the State.  But most who swear that oath have never read nor fully studied the constitutions.  It seems a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of loyalty oath swearers cannot possible support what they do not know, and that they have committed perjury upon swearing that oath.

So, what value has the oath of loyalty to the Constitution ? I believe it has little value, for these reasons:

  1. Violating the loyalty oath does not cause the violators to forfeit money or position;
  2. One cannot support what one does not know, and most don't know the constitutions;
  3. God certainly does not smite, punish, or strike violators dead. 
  4. No law that I know of penalizes a violation of the loyalty oath.

The Kol Nidre Declaration

Furthermore, some groups of people, like fundamentalist Jews, may and do engage in ritual denials of oaths in advance of swearing them.  Take, for example, the Kol Nidre solemn declaration of fundamentalist Jews at Yom Kippur every late September/early October:
"All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
How can "we the people" possibly trust the integrity of those who foreswear their oaths in advance?  Religion pundits might claim they mean that Kol Nidre declaration refers only to personal oaths like "I swear I'll stop smoking,"  But in reality they have no idea what sincerity lurks in the hearts of the members of their flocks. Kol Nidre could apply to all oaths, personal, impersonal, formal, informal, large, small, significant, and insignificant.  In other words, you cannot trust people who foreswear their oaths in advance to adhere to oaths they swear subsequently.


And, interestingly, Ashkenazi Jews often wind up in leadership positions in courts and elsewhere in government because they have the highest average IQ (115) of any genetic group on the planet.  So the meaning and sincerity of their oath taking has salient relevance to their performance of duties according to law and rules of procedure.


Public Officers Must Build a Record of Trustworthiness

From practical experience, how do I know you can’t trust judges and other officials to abide by their loyalty oaths?   Simple.  I have monitored their behavior. You can too. Start attending court hearings and you will conclude as I have that some judges violate their loyalty oaths repeatedly.

We have living proof from the behavior of judges in all levels of courts that their word does not constitute their bond. And you will note that many states (including Florida) do not require judges to have surety bonds to give people a modicum of confidence that the judges will abide by their oaths.  Florida government "self-insures" the performance of its judges.


Why do judges lie and disobey their oaths so much?  Because they enjoy judicial immunity that no constitution grants them.  The Judicial Qualification Commissions have judges and lawyers in them who overlord the citizen appointees, and they virtually never discipline judges widely reputed to flout the law and rules.  Furthermore, citizens find it virtually impossible to get the House Committee on the Judiciary to impeach "bad" judges.  The newspapers refuse to publish negative stories about all but the worst of judges.  Prosecutors won't prosecute them.  And grand juries, usually perverted by prosecutors, won't indict them.  Thus, judges do lie and disobey their oaths because they can get away with doing it.  In summary, I have concluded that many judges, having no check or balance on their behavior, breach their oath and lie, and some do it a lot.


Also, many prosecutors enjoy qualified immunity, and as prosecutors their winning has greater importance to them than their honesty and integrity.  They will typically say or do anything to win their case because they know that the law means only what the judge says it means.  They don't want to trust that they will win a case on its merits, so they lie to the defendant in order to coax out a plea bargain agreement.  And because so many defense attorneys plea bargain their clients into a conviction, they never become competent litigators. Because so many prosecutors face off against incompetent defense counsels, prosecutors generally win, but still never develop competence.  In effect the defendants become victims of a comedy or errors practiced by figurative dunces.


So, I believe ALL prosecutors lie more than judges do, in other words, whenever it suits their purpose.  And, horror of horrors, many prosecutors go on to become judges.  They start lying early in their careers, carry it over into judgeships, and never stop.    Since they lie so much in public, surely they have no compunction about doing it at home.  So, I have often wondered why their children and spouses don't kill them in their sleep.


I realize my reaction to judge/prosecutor lies and flouting of loyalty oaths seems extreme.  But I can think of no liar more horrid, intolerable, and deserving of excision from the planet than a lying judge, and next to that, a lying lawyer.

According to Mark Twain

A person saying “My word is my bond” signifies the intent to say and obey the truth of that word. That statement implies such an intent and behavior since the time of accountability or of having made the first moral decision in childhood. It seems somewhat equivalent to saying “May God strike me dead if I’m lying or if I fail to abide by what I said.” That person means:
“I have lived my whole life since a child saying the truth, and obeying what I said. I shall continue doing so.”
Mark Twain would take exception to such a grandiose statement. He believed everyone a liar. He even wrote an essay about it in 1885 - On the Decay of the Art of Lying. There he quoted Benjamin Disraeli (actually, Lord Leonard Henry Courtney) as referring to the three kinds of liars – “liars, damned liars, and statistics.” Mark Twain alleged that everyone tells at least little white lies. Since we can’t stop lying, he asserted, we should lie more artfully, thoughtfully, and judiciously according to these rules:

1. to lie with a good object, and not an evil one;
2. to lie for others' advantage, and not our own;
3. to lie healingly, charitably, humanely, not cruelly, hurtfully, maliciously;
4. to lie gracefully and graciously, not awkwardly and clumsily;
5. to lie firmly, frankly, squarely, with head erect, not haltingly, tortuously, with pusillanimous mien, as being ashamed of our high calling.

I Side with Twain

I feel rather inclined to side with Twain. We should not claim “my word is my bond,” for we MUST sometimes lie in the name of nobility and righteousness. In fact, as any politician would tell you, one’s profession can require one to lie quite often.

For clarification, consider the following partial List of Kinds of Lies or Liars. I imagine it could easily grow to twice its number of lie types, or more. All of the items on it constitute lies of one kind or another.

List Kinds of Lies or Liars (partial)

  1. ambiguity
  2. amphigory
  3. amplification
  4. artifice
  5. balderdash
  6. baloney
  7. bamboozle
  8. beat around the bush
  9. beguile
  10. bilgewater
  11. bilk
  12. blather
  13. bluff
  14. bosh
  15. bullshit
  16. bunco
  17. bunk
  18. cajole
  19. canard
  20. cheat
  21. claptrap
  22. cock and bull
  23. codswallop
  24. con
  25. counterfeit
  26. cow plop
  27. coy
  28. crap
  29. deceit
  30. deceive
  31. deception
  32. decoy
  33. defraud
  34. delusion
  35. diddle
  36. diplomacy
  37. disguise
  38. dishonesty
  39. disinformation
  40. dissemble
  41. dissimulation
  42. distortion
  43. double-cross
  44. drivel
  45. drool
  46. dupe
  47. duplicity
  48. equivocation
  49. euphemism
  50. evasion
  51. exaggeration
  52. fable
  53. fabrication
  54. fairy tale
  55. fallacy
  56. falsehood
  57. falsification
  58. falsity
  59. fib
  60. fiction
  61. figure of speech
  62. flattery
  63. flimflam
  64. fob
  65. fool
  66. forgery
  67. fraud
  68. fugazi
  69. game
  70. generalization
  71. gull
  72. half-truth
  73. hoax
  74. hocus
  75. hogwash
  76. hornswoggle
  77. humbug
  78. hustle
  79. hyperbole
  80. imposture
  81. inaccuracy
  82. inveigle
  83. invention
  84. joke
  85. josh
  86. liar
  87. libel
  88. lie (damned)
  89. lie (white)
  90. lie (ordinary)
  91. malapropism
  92. malarkey
  93. mask
  94. mendacity
  95. mental reservation
  96. misdirection
  97. misinformation
  98. mislead
  99. misrepresentation
  100. myth
  101. omission
  102. paltering
  103. paltery
  104. perjury
  105. poppycock
  106. pretense
  107. prevaricate
  108. propaganda
  109. pseudologue
  110. pseudology
  111. rumor
  112. sham
  113. slander
  114. song and dance
  115. spoof
  116. statistic
  117. story
  118. stretching of the truth
  119. swindle
  120. tale
  121. tall tale
  122. taradiddle
  123. tergiversation
  124. tommyrot
  125. trick
  126. twaddle
  127. untruth
  128. unveracity
  129. whopper
  130. yarn

Why I Side with Mark Twain

As I suggested when I sided with Twain, I don’t mean to imply that one can never justify a lie. A lie can save relationships, lives, or perhaps a civilization. But however justified, it still amounts to a lie.

And even though statistics constitute mathematical lies, they also provide a way of analyzing facts so as to discover their general nature. And that kind of lie, a generalization, highlights truth to prevent people from equating an exception with its rule. As Harvard professor emeritus Frederick Mosteller pointed out, "It is easy to lie with statistics, but it is easier to lie without them." Statistics can keep some liars somewhat honest.

Summary and Conclusion

Don’t worry. Even “bad things” like lies can serve good purposes.  

However, disloyalty to truth never does any good.

Anyway, statistically speaking, I guess every human who ever lived did or became at least one of the things in the above List of Kinds of Lies or Liars.

And that means no man’s word is his bond.  So I say "this statement a lie," and I ask "Is it, really?"

Bob Hurt
Am I who I seem?
Contact: Email  bh   f       t •
Blogs: 
1 2 3 •
Law: 
Donate Learn the Law
2460 Persian Drive #70,  Clearwater,  Florida 33763  •
727 669 5511