Additional Titles

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF OREGON JUDGES CHALLENGED

Why the "Quo Warranto" issue just will not go away!

 

 

 

Introduction to the article below:

A current review of the situation in Oregon, as it pertains to the legal functioning of it's system of Justice, reveals that most, if not all Judges sitting in judgment of Oregon's citizens, have been doing so absent of any Constitutional authority, for literally decades. This, in fact, IS a crisis of rule of law as required under both the American AND Oregon Constitutions. Simply put, Oregon's Judges have no "Constitutional" authority to sentence any citizen. This brings all previous sentencing into default - the only assumed or usurped authority being that predicated upon the historical faith and perception of Oregon's citizens, that Judges were indeed judging and sentencing in full accordance with the rule of law as provided for under the Oregon Constitution.  

Similar to today's debased and so-called "legal" tender, which is not legal, in the Constitutional sense at AT ALL, Oregon's Courts are also fiat in fact - having become mostly form, they lack true substance, or at least have been infiltrated and co-opted by a foreign or fiat substance, being that of the legal profession as a self-serving extra-territorial political and financial interest. And whereas Oregon's citizens are only in the initial stages of perceiving and digesting the full historical extent and social impact of all pertinent information and material, in the future, Oregon has everything to gain and little to lose by fully understanding, and grappling with this gross state of injustice to it's ultimate conclusion - an as yet undefined confrontation between the fiat "legal" usurpers, and Oregon's conscientious citizenry. And as usual, time is of the essence.

In conclusion, and under any circumstances, both Oregon, AND The United States, if it is to have any future at all, must be returned to the shelter of THE American Constitution and rule of law.

"There is no hour nor day, when evil may not enter upon the land, there is no bar against it, except for a large resolute breed of men." 

                                                                    -- American Poet, Walt Whitman

 

 

 

 

Marcel Roy Bendshadler

June 18, 2002

NewsWithViews.com

 
This may sound like it is a "story for Oregon."  Do not be fooled!  Read on to find out why it may apply to your state as well.
 
There is always a point in any struggle, especially when that struggle is against what appears to be an impenetrable opponent, when the tyrants realize that they are not going to "escape" and they start scrambling to save their individual necks rather than staying united. 
 
Such could be the case now. 
 
Early May of this year Mr. Selander, a "Judge" in Clackamas County, stated that he would take the proper, i.e. Constitutional, Oath of Office if "the Assistant A.G. had no objections."  Well either the Assistant A.G. had no objections, or Mr. Selander decided to take the Constitutionally required Oath of Office as required by Oregon's Constitution, Article VII, Section 21.  Now out of the 163 Circuit Court Judges in Oregon, we have ONE who has the Constitutional Oath of Office and can actually officiate in the position of Judge here in Oregon.
 
The fact that we now have Judge Selander with a proper Oath is prima facie evidence that the rest of the "judges" are nothing more than usurpers.  Anyone who now does a Quo Warranto Complaint against one of these usurpers should have as "Exhibit 1" a Certified Copy Judge Selander's Oath and compare it to the usurper's "oath" and point out how they are different emphasizing the point that just ONE change invalidates the entire Oath.
 
This cause is now applying to "Pro Tempore" Judges as well, for it has been discovered that D. Erik Larson in Marion County has at least tried to take the proper oath.  He must have copied his oath out of Oregon's "Blue Book" for it has a comma that we have forced them to removed because it does not belong there, but he has all the right words so there is prima facie evidence that the "Pro Tem" judges have to take the proper oath also.
 
Now what?
 
Well, obviously since Mr. Selander is really now "Judge Selander" and since D. Erik Larson is now a proper Judge Pro Tempore, then that leaves the other 162 Circuit Court Usurpers and all the other Pro Tempore "Judges" with two choices: Follow the example of Selander & Larson or not. 
 
If they do, will this mean the end of Quo Warranto actions?
 
No, for if you have had a "judgment" against you, or against someone you care about (HINT: this can be done for such travesties as the Christine's down in Josephine County), you can file a Quo Warranto Complaint, for it is done as a "State ex rel." action.  However, if the Usurpers follow the example of Mr. Selander, then that will close the door on any Quo Warranto actions from that time on... however, a Quo Warranto action can be brought at any time, especially if it is one of mine where the Quo Warranto attacks a Void Judgment and brings up the issue of Fraud.  Get out your Black's Law Dictionary and you will see that a Void Judgment can be attacked by anyone who is injured by it (are YOU injured by the Christine's being locked up for "Kidnapping" their own children?) at any time (what is the "statute of limitations?) whether directly or collaterally.
 
So what else is new?
 
As reported by The Power Hour radio network and other sources, there are up to 80 Federal Judges that are scheduled to come to Oregon to try these Quo Warranto cases.  The reason for this is because there have been 30 Federal Prosecutors/Investigators that have been here for sometime investigating these Quo Warranto Complaints.
 
Why is the Federal Government involved?
 
American Constitution Article IV, Section 4 states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

With essentially no Constitutional Judges on duty here in Oregon, we have lost our Republican Form of Government, for there is only the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government left if the Judiciary is gone. This has left us open to invasion from The B.A.R. Association, a foreign corporation, which has turned the "Courts" into self-initiating business entities servicing their esoteric soldiers known as "prosecutors" and "attorneys."  Moreover, by their membership in this foreign corporation, these "attorney's at law" are statute "merchants" (see U.C.C. Section 2-104(1) and O.R.S. 72.1040) that have attempted to hybridize the law but instead have created an environment of Domestic Violence initiated and promulgated by the B.A.R. Association.  Ask any attorney and you are going to find one of two types, those that know the "game" and will deny, usually calling you crazy, or those that don't and will deny, usually calling you crazy... of course, every now and then you will come across one who knows and does not deny... but they are as rare as chicken lips.
 
OK, I do not live in Oregon, why is this important to me?
 
From my research I believe that 35 of the several states have a mandatory Oath of Office that Judges must take before they can "officiate" in the capacity of "Judge."  From reports I have had, over 20 states have found the same "problem" as here in Oregon.  I have even started a working group in Texas and have people in other states that are interested in starting working groups to study the issue and come up with their own "Quo Warranto" action plan, so "Quo Warranto Fever" is spreading rapidly amongst the several states and you can "catch" it also.  If you do catch Q.W. Fever, the "cure" is filing a Complaint against the Usurper(s) that are holding these vaunted positions of "Judge" and that is what the working groups are about.
 
What can a Quo Warranto action do?
 
Well, besides scraping a Usurper from the bench, there is more.  See, everything a usurper does is void ab initio or "from the beginning" so if you have a "judgment" against you, whether it be a traffic ticket or a major felony, if the Usurper did not have an Oath of Office done properly then each and every action taken by that Usurper is a Void Judgment, which is defined as:
 

Void Judgment. one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2nd 1087, 1092.  One which, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.  One that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process or Party in court.  See also Voidable judgment. (Emphasis added)

--Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, Page 1412.

 
So, as you can see from the above definition, there is no "statute of limitations" on a Void Judgment and certainly a Usurper pretending to be a Judge constitutes want of jurisdiction which makes the "judgment" ineffectual to bind you!  See, you would not have accepted any "judgment" from a Usurper if they had informed you, "Oh, by the way, I just wanted to tell you that I don't have an Oath of Office and I am just sitting up here pretending to be a Judge because it is so much fun!"  Would you?
 
What if my "case" is in process?
 
Every single Quo Warranto action that has been brought here in Oregon has resulted in an estopple from the action that proceeded it.  If the Usurper has no authority and you have discovered this fact, do you want to continue as if nothing was wrong?  One of the best examples of how an estopple works is from my own "case files" where our Injured Party, we will call him "Jack," had an on-going action against him.  Jack filed his Quo Warranto against a Usurper whom we will call "Smith" on a Monday.  On Friday Jack had a hearing where the terms of the Void Judgment were going to be altered not in Jack's favor.  Jack shows up and proceeds to tell another Usurper that he had no authority in this matter since Jack had filed a Quo Warranto against Smith.  The Usurper gets all huffy and declares the he has "authority" and will proceed.  Jack was ready for this, for Jack has read his Black's Law Dictionary and knows that the definition of "authority" is "permission."  Yup, that is the entire definition when you stop reading at the first period, for everything after the first period in any definition of a word in a Law Dictionary is merely explanation, sometimes contradicting the first sentence!
 
Jack tells the Usurper that he has not given the Usurper permission to proceed since he is estopped and therefore the Usurper has no "authority" to proceed.  Jack and the Usurper go back and forth a few times until Jack tells the Usurper one of the "classical" Maxims in Law when Jack says to the Usurper, "Sir, you are free to make any decision you wish, but you are never free to escape the consequences of your decisions."  This must have gotten the attention of the Usurper for he declared that he was going to read Jack's Complaint (Quo Warranto).
 
After a few minutes the Usurper slammed his gavel down all red-faced and highly agitated declaring that indeed he did have authority and that nothing was going to happen that day.  The Usurper then stormed from the room without setting a date for "follow-up" which has always been the process that Jack has gone through.
 
Now Jack is in an interesting position.  See all the Quo Warranto actions are Complaints against the Usurper and the Usurper must give an "answer" within 30 days of being "served" with the Complaint.  Jack is quickly approaching 30 days and there has been nary a peep from the Usurper Smith.  If the Usurper Smith fails to "answer" then Jack can move for summary Judgment for everything he asked for in his Complaint against Smith.
 
Can a Usurper go to jail over this issue?
 
Here in Oregon everyone who runs for position of Judge, even if they were appointed to the position and are running "unopposed," must file a "Filing of Candidacy for Nonpartisan Nomination" with the Secretary of State and sign this document under penalty of perjury.  Well, right above the signature line, it states, among other things, "By signing this document, I hereby state: ... That I shall qualify for said office if elected..."
 
The Supreme Court of Oregon in the 1941 case of State ex rel. Smith v. Tazwell, 166 Or. 349, 111 P.2d 1021, stated that before a Judge can assume judicial office, s/he must "Qualify" which Tazwell defined as three separate actions.  S/He MUST do these things, for if they don't, their office is "vacant."  They must "Take" which is an Oral action in front of someone who is qualified to "receive" and witness their Oath.  They must "Subscribe" which means they must put their signature down so that we know they have agreed to the Oath and that signature must be witnessed either by a Notary Public or a Qualified Judge who has done so in front of a Notary or another Qualified Judge... eventually you have to be able to "trace" back to a Notary Public.  Finally, they must "Transmit" which means they have sent the "Subscribed" original Oath to the Secretary of State so that We, The People can view it.
 
In this same case the Supreme Court was extremely specific, to the point of quoting the Oath in its entirety, that the Oath was the one found at Article VII, Section 21.  This means that if one has not Qualified for their office, they are a Usurper.
 
But the question is about jail, so back to that "Filing" statement: below the signature is a warning that reads:

Warning: Supplying false information on this form may result in a conviction of a felony with a fine of up to $100,000 and/or prison for up to five years.

See!  They have agreed to prison and/or a fine!  It is my goal to take every Usurper and move them from the "Bench" they are currently sitting on and put them on the "Bench" waiting to use the pay-phone at a state penitentiary where they can "feel the love" from their victims.  Think about it, is "failing to qualify" when they said that they would "supplying false information" on the form?
 
There really is no excuse.  In fact a B.A.R. Attorney from New York even wrote an article about no excuses on the Oath of Office issue, and she was writing about a statutory mandate.  When it comes to a Constitutional mandate, there is even less of an excuse.  You can read her article at the Oregon Family Rights website by following this link:
 
http://oregonfamilyrights.com/documents/new_york_state_bar_journal_march97.htm
 
 
What happens if I get a Void Judgment overturned, will I be tried again?
 
We have this wonderful provision of the Constitution against Double Jeopardy.  If you have been tried and "convicted" then you cannot be tried again.  After all, it was not your fault that you were "tried" in front of a Usurper who did not have Authority to "try" you.
 
OK, Mr. Bigshot, by what authority do you bring these Quo Warranto actions?
 
I get asked this question all the time, which is really sad for it shows a lack of understanding of our Constitution.  The preamble to the Unanimous Declaration of the 13 united States of America (Commonly Called the Declaration of Independence)  clearly states that governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed."  Well I only consent to be "governed" by a Government that follows the rules as laid out in the Constitutions and Oregon's Constitution clearly states that a Judge must take an Oath of Office that is located at Article VII, Section 21 of that Constitution and no other is acceptable.
 
So, do you consent to being governed by a bunch of Usurpers?  Do you have a "Judgment" against you that is interfering against your life or is simply "stuck in your craw" and want to get rid of it?  It doesn't matter how big or how small it is, you are entitled by the First Article of the Bill of Rights to "Redress of Grievances" and a Quo Warranto Complaint is certainly that!  So if you have had "enough" already, contact me at KC7AQK@worldnet.att.net and we can start on your Quo Warranto complaint today!
 
Is there anything else I can do to help?
 
This question brings joy to my heart for the answer is an emphatic YES!  You can join or start a study group.  For example, a bunch of people contacted me from the great state of Texas with the discovery that they were in the same situation as us here in Oregon, so I put them in touch with each other and had them form a study group.  Soon they will have their own Quo Warranto process.  If you don't have a Judgment against you, but would like to help those that do, you can donate to help those that don't have the funds to fight.  If you so desire you can send a donation for free to my PayPal account at KC7AQK@worldnet.att.net and put "Quo Warranto Fund" in the message field and I will know what to do with it.  Please consider giving generously, as each Complaint can cost several hundred dollars to get going and I have requests from dozens of prisoners who have nothing and they want to have their Void Judgments overturned.  If you prefer sending a check or money order, please do so to:
 
Life, Liberty, Property
Without Prejudice
C/O P.O. Box 11561
Portland, Oregon  97211-0561
 
Write "Quo Warranto Victory Fund" on the lower left-hand corner of the envelope and that will expedite your donation.

 

Marcel Roy Bendshadler - All Rights Reserved


Marcel Roy Bendshadler is a teacher and founding partner of the Citizen's Rights Task Force in Portland, Oregon.  He is a former talk show host and is still a regular guest on such nationally syndicated shows such as Nolan @ Night out of Washington, D.C.  He has been instrumental in re-uniting over 30 families that have been torn apart by CSD/SCF.  He holds a Masters in Constitutional Law and has used the knowledge from those studies as an activist.  His activities have been so far reaching that on one occasion a Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court called him a "Constitutional Counsellor" due to his extensive knowledge and application of the Common Law.  He qualifies for membership in MENSA, but says he has difficulty belonging to any group that would have him as a member.


Related Articles:

Oregon Judges Haven't Taken Constitutionally Required Oath

Home