"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.
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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
