Common Sense Revisited -September 1, 2012 | Guest: Corey Eib & the Rawesome Foods Fraudulent Oaths Update
Sat, 09/01/2012 - 17:22
Radio Show Archive(s):
NEW BROADCAST TIME!
Listen Live on www.RepublicBroadcasting.org 1pm CST every Saturday
Today's Topics and Show Links:
TODAY'S RADIO SHOW IS A FOLLOW UP TO: Rawesome Foods Scandal in California Uncovers Massive Fraud and Attempted Cover Up by Public Officials COVERED BACK IN JULY: http://www.thirdrailblog.com/showlinks-jul28-2012
On Today's Show, Corey Eib is the guest the full hour and walks us through his current efforts to secure oaths of office of the purported peace officers involved in the unlawful Rawesome Food Raid, in order to prove the arrest of James Stewart was unlawful and James should be set free.
Article 20, Sec 3 of the California Constitution
"1360-1369 explains how the oath has to be done and as a peace officer what you have to do with your oath of office"
1367. No compensation nor reimbursement for expenses incurred shall
be paid to any officer by any public agency unless he has taken and
subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter.
Below is a link to the documents we cover, that include:
- No Oath for Michele Lecavalier, the Dept of Health Official that directed the raid (April 26, 2012)
Director of Public Health, Angelo Bellomo confirms that Lecavalier has no oath on file, and that the department and corrective measures have been taken to improve the recording process
- The LA District Attorney's Public Record's Act Request Response to Corey Eib (June.14.2012)
DA Cooley says he will provide the Oaths for the DA's Investigators who raided Stewart's property, but will redact their signatures
- Corey Eib's Response and Re-Demand for PRA Docs (July 7, 2012)
Herein, Corey establishes that course of action is contrary to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution
- The LA District Attorney's Public Record's Act Request Response to Corey Eib (August 14, 2012)
They reconsider their original decision and comply. Oaths sent, with signatures intact.
Corey asserts, in this interview, that if you read the Oaths very carefully, then compare to what is written in the Constitution of the State of California, most of these are defective.
"The oath is like a deed. If you are sitting in your home and say your address is 107 La Placentia, then someone comes and claims it is their home. Of course you take out your deed and find out it says 107 La Crecenta because someone made a mistake, you don't have a deed to your home. Same thing with a promissory oath."
Why is it important for the Oaths to be PROPERLY SUBSCRIBED?
11. IMPROPER OATH REVERSES MURDER CONVICTION
Posted on Sunday, 22 of June , 2008 at 11:01 am, By June Maxam. To read the entire article, which tells how judges are disqualified if they were not sworn in properly, please visit: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2008/06/22/improper_oath/
—So you think taking an oath is just a technicality?
The conviction of a person serving a life prison term without the possibility of parole was reversed last week by a state appellate court because potential jurors weren’t given the proper oath in Rensselaer County Court.
In sending the case back for a new trial, the state Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department reinforced that:
“Oaths are not formalities, are sacred, and no citizen need expose himself [or herself] to loss of liberty and property by people who are not sworn”.
Corey wrote in an email: "So a murderer goes free because because a proper oath was not administered. This issue is important not only as a strategy to prevent frivolous prosecutions by holding the elements of a prosecution to the standard of the Constitution so valiantly fought for, but to protect our peace and neighborhoods by ensuring convictions are valid decisions following complete due process."
And then there's this example of the importance of a proper oath:
Timothy Becktel was sentenced in 2008 for assault with intent to murder. But his appellate lawyer successfully argued that the verdict should be thrown out because the jury didn't swear to return an honest decision based on law and evidence.
The Michigan Court of Appeals said Friday it must erase the verdict to preserve the fairness and integrity of the judicial system.