New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 39
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
376 U.S. 254
Argued January 6, 1964
Decided March 9, 1964
* Together with No. 40, Abernathy v. Sullivan, also on certiorari to the same court, argued January 7, 1964.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syllabus
Respondent, an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department. The trial judge instructed the jury that such statements were "libelous per se," legal injury being implied without proof of actual damages, and that, for the purpose of compensatory damages, malice was presumed, so that such damages could be awarded against petitioners if the statements were found to have been published by them and to have related to respondent. As to punitive damages, the judge instructed that mere negligence was not evidence of actual malice, and would not justify an award of punitive damages; he refused to instruct that actual intent to harm or recklessness had to be found before punitive damages could be awarded, or that a verdict for respondent should differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found for respondent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice"--that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292.
(a) Application by state courts of a rule of law, whether statutory or not, to award a judgment in a civil action, is "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 265.
(b) Expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement. Pp. 265-266. [255]
(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice"--knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth--is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283.
(d) State court judgment entered upon a general verdict which does not differentiate between punitive damages, as to which, under state law, actual malice must be proved, and general damages, as to which it is "presumed," precludes any determination as to the basis of the verdict, and requires reversal, where presumption of malice is inconsistent with federal constitutional requirements. P. 284.
(e) The evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent, since it failed to support a finding that the statements were made with actual malice or that they related to respondent. Pp. 285-292.
273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded. [256]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protection for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.
Respondent L.B. Sullivan is one of the three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He testified that he was "Commissioner of Public Affairs and the duties are supervision of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Cemetery and Department of Scales." He brought this civil libel action against the four individual petitioners, who are Negroes and Alabama clergymen, and against petitioner the New York Times Company, a New York corporation which publishes the New York Times, a daily newspaper. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him damages of $500,000, the full amount claimed, against all the petitioners, and the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25.
Respondent's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by statements in a full-page advertisement that was carried in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. [note 1] Entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," the advertisement began by stating that, "As the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students are engaged in widespread nonviolent demonstrations in positive affirmation of the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights." It went on to charge that, "in their efforts to uphold these guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom. . . .' Succeeding [257] paragraphs purported to illustrate the "wave of terror" by describing certain alleged events. The text concluded with an appeal for funds for three purposes: support of the student movement, "the struggle for the right to vote," and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery.
The text appeared over the names of 64 persons, many widely known for their activities in public affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing arts. Below these names, and under a line reading "We in the south who are struggling daily for dignity and freedom warmly endorse this appeal," appeared the names of the four individual petitioners and of 16 other persons, all but two of whom were identified as clergymen in various Southern cities. The advertisement was signed at the bottom of the page by the "Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South," and the officers of the Committee were listed.
Of the 10 paragraphs of text in the advertisement, the third and a portion of the sixth were the basis of respondent's claim of libel. They read as follows:
Third paragraph:
In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" on the State Capitol steps, their leaders were expelled from school, and truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear-gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the entire student body protested to state authorities by refusing to reregister, their dining hall was padlocked in an attempt to starve them into submission.
Sixth paragraph:
Again and again, the Southern violators have answered Dr. King's peaceful protests with intimidation and violence. They have bombed his home, almost killing his wife and child. They have [258] assaulted his person. They have arrested him seven times--for "speeding," "loitering" and similar "offenses." And now they have charged him with "perjury"--a felony under which they could imprison him for ten years. . . .
Although neither of these statements mentions respondent by name, he contended that the word "police" in the third paragraph referred to him as the Montgomery Commissioner who supervised the Police Department, so that he was being accused of "ringing" the campus with police. He further claimed that the paragraph would be read as imputing to the police, and hence to him, the padlocking of the dining hall in order to starve the students into submission. [note 2] As to the sixth paragraph, he contended that, since arrests are ordinarily made by the police, the statement "They have arrested [Dr. King] seven times" would be read as referring to him; he further contended that the "They" who did the arresting would be equated with the "They" who committed the other described acts and with the "Southern violators." Thus, he argued, the paragraph would be read as accusing the Montgomery police, and hence him, of answering Dr. King's protests with "intimidation and violence," bombing his home, assaulting his person, and charging him with perjury. Respondent and six other Montgomery residents testified that they read some or all of the statements as referring to him in his capacity as Commissioner.
It is uncontroverted that some of the statements contained in the two paragraphs were not accurate descriptions of events which occurred in Montgomery. Although Negro students staged a demonstration on the State Capitol steps, they sang the National Anthem and not "My [259] Country, 'Tis of Thee." Although nine students were expelled by the State Board of Education, this was not for leading the demonstration at the Capitol, but for demanding service at a lunch counter in the Montgomery County Courthouse on another day. Not the entire student body, but most of it, had protested the expulsion, not by refusing to register, but by boycotting classes on a single day; virtually all the students did register for the ensuing semester. The campus dining hall was not padlocked on any occasion, and the only students who may have been barred from eating there were the few who had neither signed a preregistration application nor requested temporary meal tickets. Although the police were deployed near the campus in large numbers on three occasions, they did not at any time "ring" the campus, and they were not called to the campus in connection with the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, as the third paragraph implied. Dr. King had not been arrested seven times, but only four, and although he claimed to have been assaulted some years earlier in connection with his arrest for loitering outside a courtroom, one of the officers who made the arrest denied that there was such an assault.
On the premise that the charges in the sixth paragraph could be read as referring to him, respondent was allowed to prove that he had not participated in the events described. Although Dr. King's home had, in fact, been bombed twice when his wife and child were there, both of these occasions antedated respondent's tenure as Commissioner, and the police were not only not implicated in the bombings, but had made every effort to apprehend those who were. Three of Dr. King's four arrests took place before respondent became Commissioner. Although Dr. King had, in fact, been indicted (he was subsequently acquitted) on two counts of perjury, each of which carried a possible five-year sentence, respondent had nothing to do with procuring the indictment. [260]
Respondent made no effort to prove that he suffered actual pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged libel. [note 3] One of his witnesses, a former employer, testified that, if he had believed the statements, he doubted whether he "would want to be associated with anybody who would be a party to such things that are stated in that ad," and that he would not reemploy respondent if he believed "that he allowed the Police Department to do the things that the paper say he did." But neither this witness nor any of the others testified that he had actually believed the statements in their supposed reference to respondent. The cost of the advertisement was approximately $4800, and it was published by the Times upon an order from a New York advertising agency acting for the signatory Committee. The agency submitted the advertisement with a letter from A. Philip Randolph, Chairman of the Committee, certifying that the persons whose names appeared on the advertisement had given their permission. Mr. Randolph was known to the Times' Advertising Acceptability Department as a responsible person, and, in accepting the letter as sufficient proof of authorization, it followed its established practice. There was testimony that the copy of the advertisement which accompanied the letter listed only the 64 names appearing under the text, and that the statement, "We in the south . . . warmly endorse this appeal," and the list of names thereunder, which included those of the individual petitioners, were subsequently added when the first proof of the advertisement was received. Each of the individual petitioners testified that he had not authorized the use of his name, and that he had been unaware of its use until receipt of respondent's demand for a retraction. The manager of the Advertising Acceptability [261] Department testified that he had approved the advertisement for publication because he knew nothing to cause him to believe that anything in it was false, and because it bore the endorsement of "a number of people who are well known and whose reputation" he "had no reason to question." Neither he nor anyone else at the Times made an effort to confirm the accuracy of the advertisement, either by checking it against recent Times news stories relating to some of the described events or by any other means.
Alabama law denies a public officer recovery of punitive damages in a libel action brought on account of a publication concerning his official conduct unless he first makes a written demand for a public retraction and the defendant fails or refuses to comply. Alabama Code, Tit. 7, § 914. Respondent served such a demand upon each of the petitioners. None of the individual petitioners responded to the demand, primarily because each took the position that he had not authorized the use of his name on the advertisement, and therefore had not published the statements that respondent alleged had libeled him. The Times did not publish a retraction in response to the demand, but wrote respondent a letter stating, among other things, that "we . . . are somewhat puzzled as to how you think the statements in any way reflect on you," and "you might, if you desire, let us know in what respect you claim that the statements in the advertisement reflect on you." Respondent filed this suit a few days later without answering the letter. The Times did, however, subsequently publish a retraction of the advertisement upon the demand of Governor John Patterson of Alabama, who asserted that the publication charged him with "grave misconduct and . . . improper actions and omissions as Governor of Alabama and Ex-Officio Chairman of the State Board of Education of Alabama." When asked to explain why there has been a retraction for the Governor but not for respondent, the Secretary of the Times testified: "We did that because we didn't want anything that was published by The Times to be a reflection on the State of Alabama, and the Governor was, as far as we could see, the embodiment of the State of Alabama and the proper representative of the State, and, furthermore, we had by that time learned more of the actual facts which the and purported to recite and, finally, the ad did refer to the action of the State authorities and the Board of Education, presumably of which the Governor is the ex-officio chairman. . . ." On the other hand, he testified that he did not think that "any of the language in there referred to Mr. Sullivan."
The trial judge submitted the case to the jury under instructions that the statements in the advertisement were "libelous per se," and were not privileged, so that petitioners might be held liable if the jury found that they had published the advertisement and that the statements were made "of and concerning" respondent. The jury was instructed that, because the statements were libelous per se, "the law . . . implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself," "falsity and malice are presumed," "general damages need not be alleged or proved, but are presumed," and "punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown." An award of punitive damages--as distinguished from "general" damages, which are compensatory in nature--apparently requires proof of actual malice under Alabama law, and the judge charged that "mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice or malice in fact, and does not justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages." He refused to charge, however, that the jury must be "convinced" of malice, in the sense of "actual intent" to harm or "gross negligence and recklessness," to make such an award, and he also refused to require that a verdict for respondent differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages. The judge rejected petitioners' contention [263] that his rulings abridged the freedoms of speech and of the press that are guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court of Alabama sustained the trial judge's rulings and instructions in all respects. 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25. It held that, "where the words published tend to injure a person libeled by them in his reputation, profession, trade or business, or charge him with an indictable offense, or tend to bring the individual into public contempt," they are "libelous per se"; that "the matter complained of is, under the above doctrine, libelous per se, if it was published of and concerning the plaintiff", and that it was actionable without "proof of pecuniary injury . . . . such injury being implied." Id. at 673, 676, 144 So.2d at 37, 41. It approved the trial court's ruling that the jury could find the statements to have been made "of and concerning" respondent, stating: "We think it common knowledge that the average person knows that municipal agents, such as police and firemen, and others, are under the control and direction of the city governing body, and, more particularly, under the direction and control of a single commissioner. In measuring the performance or deficiencies of such groups, praise or criticism is usually attached to the official in complete control of the body." Id. at 674-675, 144 So.2d at 39. In sustaining the trial court's determination that the verdict was not excessive, the court said that malice could be inferred from the Times' "irresponsibility" in printing the advertisement while "the Times, in its own files, had articles already published which would have demonstrated the falsity of the allegations in the advertisement"; from the Times' failure to retract for respondent while retracting for the Governor, whereas the falsity of some of the allegations was then known to the Times and "the matter contained in the advertisement was equally false as to both parties", and from the testimony of the Times' Secretary that, [264] apart from the statement that the dining hall was padlocked, he thought the two paragraphs were "substantially correct." Id. at 686-687, 144 So.2d at 50-51. The court reaffirmed a statement in an earlier opinion that "There is no legal measure of damages in cases of this character." Id. at 686, 144 So.2d at 50. It rejected petitioners' constitutional contentions with the brief statements that "The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect libelous publications," and "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action, and not private action." Id. at 676, 144 So.2d at 40.
Because of the importance of the constitutional issues involved, we granted the separate petitions for certiorari of the individual petitioners and of the Times. 371 U.S. 946. We reverse the judgment. We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct.[note 4] We [265] further hold that, under the proper safeguards, the evidence presented in this case is constitutionally insufficient to support the judgment for respondent.
I
We may dispose at the outset of two grounds asserted to insulate the judgment of the Alabama courts from constitutional scrutiny. The first is the proposition relied on by the State Supreme Court--that "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action, and not private action." That proposition has no application to this case. Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, though supplemented by statute. See, e.g., Alabama Code, Tit. 7, §§ 908-917. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has, in fact, been exercised. See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321.
The second contention is that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press are inapplicable here, at least so far as the Times is concerned, because the allegedly libelous statements were published as part of a paid, "commercial" advertisement. The argument relies on Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, where the Court held that a city ordinance forbidding street distribution of commercial and business advertising matter did not abridge the First Amendment freedoms, even as applied to a handbill having a commercial message on one side but a protest against certain official action, on the other. The reliance is wholly misplaced. The Court in Chrestensen reaffirmed the constitutional protection for "the freedom of communicating [266] information and disseminating opinion"; its holding was based upon the factual conclusions that the handbill was "purely commercial advertising" and that the protest against official action had been added only to evade the ordinance.
The publication here was not a "commercial" advertisement in the sense in which the word was used in Chrestensen. It communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern. See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 435. That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial in this connection as is the fact that newspapers and books are sold. Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150; cf. Bantam Books, Inc., v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 64, n. 6. Any other conclusion would discourage newspapers from carrying "editorial advertisements" of this type, and so might shut off an important outlet for the promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not themselves have access to publishing facilities--who wish to exercise their freedom of speech even though they are not members of the press. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 164. The effect would be to shackle the First Amendment in its attempt to secure "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20. To avoid placing such a handicap upon the freedoms of expression, we hold that, if the allegedly libelous statements would otherwise be constitutionally protected from the present judgment, they do not forfeit that protection because they were published in the form of a paid advertisement. [note 5] [267]
II
Under Alabama law, as applied in this case, a publication is "libelous per se" if the words "tend to injure a person . . . in his reputation" or to "bring [him] into public contempt"; the trial court stated that the standard was met if the words are such as to "injure him in his public office, or impute misconduct to him in his office, or want of official integrity, or want of fidelity to a public trust. . . ." The jury must find that the words were published "of and concerning" the plaintiff, but, where the plaintiff is a public official, his place in the governmental hierarchy is sufficient evidence to support a finding that his reputation has been affected by statements that reflect upon the agency of which he is in charge. Once "libel per se" has been established, the defendant has no defense as to stated facts unless he can persuade the jury that they were true in all their particulars. Alabama Ride Co. v. Vance, 235 Ala. 263, 178 So. 438 (1938); Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, 271 Ala. 474, 494 495, 124 So.2d 441, 457-458 (1960). His privilege of "fair comment" for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based. Parsons v. Age-Herald Publishing Co., 181 Ala. 439, 450, 61 So. 345, 350 (1913). Unless he can discharge the burden of proving truth, general damages are presumed, and may be awarded without proof of pecuniary injury. A showing of actual malice is apparently a prerequisite to recovery of punitive damages, and the defendant may, in any event, forestall a punitive award by a retraction meeting the statutory requirements. Good motives and belief in truth do not negate an inference of malice, but are relevant only in mitigation of punitive damages if the jury chooses to accord them weight. Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, supra, 271 Ala., at 495, 124 So.2d at 458. [268]
The question before us is whether this rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Respondent relies heavily, as did the Alabama courts, on statements of this Court to the effect that the Constitution does not protect libelous publications.[note 6] Those statements do not foreclose our inquiry here. None of the cases sustained the use of libel laws to impose sanctions upon expression critical of the official conduct of public officials. The dictum in Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348-349, that "when the statements amount to defamation, a judge has such remedy in damages for libel as do other public servants," implied no view as to what remedy might constitutionally be afforded to public officials. In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, the Court sustained an Illinois criminal libel statute as applied to a publication held to be both defamatory of a racial group and "liable to cause violence and disorder." But the Court was careful to note that it "retains and exercises authority to nullify action which encroaches on freedom of utterance under the guise of punishing libel"; for "public men, are, as it were, public property," and "discussion cannot be denied and the right, as well as the duty, of criticism must not be stifled." Id., at 263-264, and n. 18. In the only previous case that did present the question of constitutional limitations upon the power to award damages for libel of a public official, the Court was equally divided and the question was not decided. Schenectady Union Pub. Co. v. Sweeney, 316 U.S. 642. In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet "libel" than we have to other "mere labels" of state law. N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. Like insurrection,[note 7] contempt,[note 8] advocacy of unlawful acts,[note 9] breach of the peace,[note 10] obscenity,[note 11] solicitation of legal business,[note 12] and the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.
The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484. "The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369. "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429. [270] The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law--the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, [271] 365. The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.
Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth--whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials--and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445. As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:
In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.
That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression [272] are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive," NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, was also recognized by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 678. Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman's libel suit based upon a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing a judicial appointment. He said:
Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate. [note 13]
Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error. Where judicial officers are involved, this Court has held that concern for the dignity and [273] reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment as criminal contempt of criticism of the judge or his decision. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252. This is true even though the utterance contains "half-truths" and "misinformation." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice. See also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375. If judges are to be treated as "men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate," Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S. at 376, surely the same must be true of other government officials, such as elected city commissioners. [note 14] Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism, and hence diminishes their official reputations.
If neither factual error nor defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield from criticism of official conduct, the combination of the two elements is no less inadequate. This is the lesson to be drawn from the great controversy over the Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596, which first crystallized a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment. See Levy, Legacy of Suppression (1960), at 258 et seq.; Smith, Freedom's Fetters (1956), at 426, 431, and passim. That statute made it a crime, punishable by a $5,000 fine and five years in prison, "if any person shall write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious [274] writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress . . . or the President . . . with intent to defame . . . or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States." The Act allowed the defendant the defense of truth, and provided that the jury were to be judges both of the law and the facts. Despite these qualifications, the Act was vigorously condemned as unconstitutional in an attack joined in by Jefferson and Madison. In the famous Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the General Assembly of Virginia resolved that it
doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts," passed at the last session of Congress. . . . [The Sedition Act] exercises . . . a power not delegated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto--a power which, more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm because it is leveled against the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right. 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, pp. 553-554.
Madison prepared the Report in support of the protest. His premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was "altogether different" from the British form, under which the Crown was sovereign and the people were subjects. "Is [275] it not natural and necessary, under such different circumstances," he asked, "that a different degree of freedom in the use of the press should be contemplated?" Id., pp. 569-570. Earlier, in a debate in the House of Representatives, Madison had said: "If we advert to the nature of Republican Government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." 4 Annals of Congress, p. 934 (1794). Of the exercise of that power by the press, his Report said: "In every state, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing, the freedom of the press has stood; on this foundation it yet stands. . . ." 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 570. The right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials was thus, in Madison's view, a fundmaental principle of the American form of government.
Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, [note 16] the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. Fines levied in its prosecution were repaid by Act of Congress on the ground that it was unconstitutional. See, e.g., Act of July 4, 1840, c. 45, 6 Stat. 802, accompanied by H.R.Rep. No. 86, 26th Cong., 1st Sess. (1840). Calhoun, reporting to the Senate on February 4, 1836, assumed that its invalidity was a matter "which no one now doubts." Report with Senate bill No. 122, 24th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. Jefferson, as President, pardoned those who had been convicted and sentenced under the Act and remitted their fines, stating: "I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the sedition law because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity, as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image." Letter to Mrs. Adams, July 22, 1804, 4 Jefferson's Works (Washington ed.), pp. 555, 556. The invalidity of the Act has also been assumed by Justices of this Court. See Holmes, J., dissenting and joined by Brandeis, J., in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630; Jackson, J., dissenting in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 288-289; Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 47. See also Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed., Carrington, 1927), pp. 899-900; Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1942), pp. 27-28. These views reflect a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.
There is no force in respondent's argument that the constitutional limitations implicit in the history of the Sedition Act apply only to Congress, and not to the States. It is true that the First Amendment was originally addressed only to action by the Federal Government, and [277] that Jefferson, for one, while denying the power of Congress "to controul the freedom of the press," recognized such a power in the States. See the 1804 Letter to Abigail Adams quoted in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 522, n. 4 (concurring opinion). But this distinction was eliminated with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the application to the States of the First Amendment's restrictions. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160; Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235.
What a State may not constitutionally bring about by means of a criminal statute is likewise beyond the reach of its civil law of libel. [note 17] The fear of damage awards under a rule such as that invoked by the Alabama courts here may be markedly more inhibiting than the fear of prosecution under a criminal statute. See City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 607, 139 N.E. 86, 90 (1923). Alabama, for example, has a criminal libel law which subjects to prosecution "any person who speaks, writes, or prints of and concerning another any accusation falsely and maliciously importing the commission by such person of a felony, or any other indictable offense involving moral turpitude," and which allows as punishment upon conviction a fine not exceeding $500 and a prison sentence of six months. Alabama Code, Tit. 14, § 350. Presumably, a person charged with violation of this statute enjoys ordinary criminal law safeguards such as the requirements of an indictment and of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These safeguards are not available to the defendant in a civil action. The judgment awarded in this case--without the need for any proof of actual pecuniary loss--was one thousand times greater than the maximum fine provided by the Alabama criminal statute, and one hundred times greater than that provided by the Sedition Act. [278] And since there is no double jeopardy limitation applicable to civil lawsuits, this is not the only judgment that may be awarded against petitioners for the same publication. [note 18] Whether or not a newspaper can survive a succession of such judgments, the pall of fear and timidity imposed upon those who would give voice to public criticism is an atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot survive. Plainly the Alabama law of civil libel is "a form of regulation that creates hazards to protected freedoms markedly greater than those that attend reliance upon the criminal law." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70.
The state rule of law is not saved by its allowance of the defense of truth. A defense for erroneous statements honestly made is no less essential here than was the requirement of proof of guilty knowledge which, in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, we held indispensable to a valid conviction of a bookseller for possessing obscene writings for sale. We said:
For, if the bookseller is criminally liable without knowledge of the contents, . . . He will tend to restrict the books he sells to those he has inspected, and thus the State will have imposed a restriction upon the distribution of constitutionally protected, as well as obscene, literature. . . . And the bookseller's burden would become the public's burden, for, by restricting him, the public's access to reading matter would be restricted. . . . [H]is timidity in the face of his absolute criminal liability thus would tend to restrict the public's access to forms of the printed word which the State could not constitutionally [279] suppress directly. The bookseller's self-censorship, compelled by the State, would be a censorship affecting the whole public, hardly less virulent for being privately administered. Through it, the distribution of all books, both obscene and not obscene, would be impeded. (361 U.S. 147, 153-154.)
A rule compelling the critic of official conduct to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions--and to do so on pain of libel judgments virtually unlimited in amount--leads to a comparable "self-censorship." Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred. [note 19] Even courts accepting this defense as an adequate safeguard have recognized the difficulties of adducing legal proofs that the alleged libel was true in all its factual particulars. See, e.g., Post Publishing Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. 530, 540 (C.A. 6th Cir. 1893); see also Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 892 (1949). Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is, in fact, true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which "steer far wider of the unlawful zone." Speiser v. Randall, supra, 357 U.S. at 526. The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [280] with "actual malice"--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An oft-cited statement of a like rule, which has been adopted by a number of state courts, [note 20] is found in the Kansas case of Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 98 P. 281 (1908). The State Attorney General, a candidate for reelection and a member of the commission charged with the management and control of the state school fund, sued a newspaper publisher for alleged libel in an article purporting to state facts relating to his official conduct in connection with a school-fund transaction. The defendant pleaded privilege and the trial judge, over the plaintiff's objection, instructed the jury that
where an article is published and circulated among voters for the sole purpose of giving what the defendant [281] believes to be truthful information concerning a candidate for public office and for the purpose of enabling such voters to cast their ballot more intelligently, and the whole thing is done in good faith and without malice, the article is privileged, although the principal matters contained in the article may be untrue, in fact, and derogatory to the character of the plaintiff, and in such a case the burden is on the plaintiff to show actual malice in the publication of the article.
In answer to a special question, the jury found that the plaintiff had not proved actual malice, and a general verdict was returned for the defendant. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kansas, in an opinion by Justice Burch, reasoned as follows (78 Kan., at 724, 98 P. at 286):
It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.
The court thus sustained the trial court's instruction as a correct statement of the law, saying:
In such a case the occasion gives rise to a privilege, qualified to this extent: any one claiming to be defamed by the communication must show actual malice or go remediless. This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of [282] public concern, public men, and candidates for office. 78 Kan. at 723, 98 P. at 285.
Such a privilege for criticism of official conduct [note 21] is appropriately analogous to the protection accorded a public official when he is sued for libel by a private citizen. In Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575, this Court held the utterance of a federal official to be absolutely privileged if made "within the outer perimeter" of his duties. The States accord the same immunity to statements of their highest officers, although some differentiate their lesser officials and qualify the privilege they enjoy. [note 22] But all hold that all officials are protected unless actual malice can be proved. The reason for the official privilege is said to be that the threat of damage suits would otherwise "inhibit the fearless, vigorous, and effective administration of policies of government" and "dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties." Barr v. Matteo, supra, 360 U.S. at 571. Analogous considerations support the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official's duty to administer. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brandeis), quoted supra, p. 270. As Madison said, see supra p. 275, "the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." It would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct [283] did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves.
We conclude that such a privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
III
We hold today that the Constitution delimits a State's power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. Since this is such an action, [note 23] the rule requiring proof of actual malice is applicable. While Alabama law apparently requires proof of actual malice for an award of punitive damages, [note 24] where general damages are concerned malice is "presumed." Such a presumption is inconsistent [284] with the federal rule. "The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions," Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 239, "the showing of malice required for the forfeiture of the privilege is not presumed but is a matter for proof by the plaintiff. . . ." Lawrence v. Fox, 357 Mich. 134, 146, 97 N.W.2d 719, 725 (1959). [note 25] Since the trial judge did not instruct the jury to differentiate between general and punitive damages, it may be that the verdict was wholly an award of one or the other. But it is impossible to know, in view of the general verdict returned. Because of this uncertainty, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 367-368; Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 291-292; see Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 311-312; Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 36, n. 45.
Since respondent may seek a new trial, we deem that considerations of effective judicial administration require us to review the evidence in the present record to determine whether it could constitutionally support a judgment for respondent. This Court's duty is not limited to the elaboration of constitutional principles; we must also in proper cases review the evidence to make certain that those principles have been constitutionally applied. This is such a case, particularly since the question is one of alleged trespass across "the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated." Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525. In cases where that line must be drawn, the rule is that we "examine for ourselves the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see . . . whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 335; see also One, Inc., v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371; Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, 355 U.S. 372. We must "make an independent examination of the whole record," Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.[note 26]
Applying these standards, we consider that the proof presented to show actual malice lacks the convincing [286] clarity which the constitutional standard demands, and hence that it would not constitutionally sustain the judgment for respondent under the proper rule of law. The case of the individual petitioners requires little discussion. Even assuming that they could constitutionally be found to have authorized the use of their names on the advertisement, there was no evidence whatever that they were aware of any erroneous statements or were in any way reckless in that regard. The judgment against them is thus without constitutional support.
As to the Times, we similarly conclude that the facts do not support a finding of actual malice. The statement by the Times' Secretary that, apart from the padlocking allegation, he thought the advertisement was "substantially correct," affords no constitutional warrant for the Alabama Supreme Court's conclusion that it was a "cavalier ignoring of the falsity of the advertisement [from which] the jury could not have but been impressed with the bad faith of The Times, and its maliciousness inferable therefrom." The statement does not indicate malice at the time of the publication; even if the advertisement was not "substantially correct"--although respondent's own proofs tend to show that it was--that opinion was at least a reasonable one, and there was no evidence to impeach the witness' good faith in holding it. The Times' failure to retract upon respondent's demand, although it later retracted upon the demand of Governor Patterson, is likewise not adequate evidence of malice for constitutional purposes. Whether or not a failure to retract may ever constitute such evidence, there are two reasons why it does not here. First, the letter written by the Times reflected a reasonable doubt on its part as to whether the advertisement could reasonably be taken to refer to respondent at all. Second, it was not a final refusal, since it asked for an explanation on this point--a request that respondent chose to ignore. Nor does the retraction upon the demand of the Governor supply the [287] necessary proof. It may be doubted that a failure to retract, which is not itself evidence of malice, can retroactively become such by virtue of a retraction subsequently made to another party. But, in any event, that did not happen here, since the explanation given by the Times' Secretary for the distinction drawn between respondent and the Governor was a reasonable one, the good faith of which was not impeached.
Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times "knew" the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of rejecting advertisements containing "attacks of a personal character"; [note 27] their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We think [288] the evidence against the Times supports, at most, a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice. Cf. Charles Parker Co. v. Silver City Crystal Co., 142 Conn. 605, 618, 116 A.2d 440, 446 (1955); Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., v. Choisser, 82 Ariz. 271, 277-278, 312 P.2d 150, 154-155 (1957).
We also think the evidence was constitutionally defective in another respect: it was incapable of supporting the jury's finding that the allegedly libelous statements were made "of and concerning" respondent. Respondent relies on the words of the advertisement and the testimony of six witnesses to establish a connection between it and himself. Thus, in his brief to this Court, he states:
The reference to respondent as police commissioner is clear from the ad. In addition, the jury heard the testimony of a newspaper editor . . . ; a real estate and insurance man . . . ; the sales manager of a men's clothing store . . . ; a food equipment man . . . ; a service station operator . . . , and the operator of a truck line for whom respondent had formerly worked. . . . Each of these witnesses stated that he associated the statements with respondent. . . . (Citations to record omitted.)
There was no reference to respondent in the advertisement, either by name or official position. A number of the allegedly libelous statements--the charges that the dining hall was padlocked and that Dr. King's home was bombed, his person assaulted, and a perjury prosecution instituted against him--did not even concern the police; despite the ingenuity of the arguments which would attach this significance to the word "They," it is plain that these statements could not reasonably be read as accusing respondent of personal involvement in the acts [289] in question. The statements upon which respondent principally relies as referring to him are the two allegations that did concern the police or police functions: that "truckloads of police . . . ringed the Alabama State College Campus" after the demonstration on the State Capitol steps, and that Dr. King had been "arrested . . . seven times." These statements were false only in that the police had been "deployed near" the campus, but had not actually "ringed" it, and had not gone there in connection with the State Capitol demonstration, and in that Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The ruling that these discrepancies between what was true and what was asserted were sufficient to injure respondent's reputation may itself raise constitutional problems, but we need not consider them here. Although the statements may be taken as referring to the police, they did not, on their face, make even an oblique reference to respondent as an individual. Support for the asserted reference must, therefore, be sought in the testimony of respondent's witnesses. But none of them suggested any basis for the belief that respondent himself was attacked in the advertisement beyond the bare fact that he was in overall charge of the Police Department and thus bore official responsibility for police conduct; to the extent that some of the witnesses thought respondent to have been charged with ordering or approving the conduct or otherwise being personally involved in it, they based this notion not on any statements in the advertisement, and not on any evidence that he had, in fact, been so involved, but solely on the unsupported assumption that, because of his official position, he must have been. [note 28] This reliance on the bare [290] fact of respondent's official position [note 29] was made explicit by the Supreme Court of Alabama. That court, in holding that the trial court "did not err in overruling the demurrer [of the Times] in the aspect that the libelous [291] matter was not of and concerning the [plaintiff,]" based its ruling on the proposition that:
We think it common knowledge that the average person knows that municipal agents, such as police and firemen, and others, are under the control and direction of the city governing body, and more particularly under the direction and control of a single commissioner. In measuring the performance or deficiencies of such groups, praise or criticism is usually attached to the official in complete control of the body. 273 Ala., at 674-675, 144 So.2d at 39.
This proposition has disquieting implications for criticism of governmental conduct. For good reason, "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence." City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 601, 139 N.E. [292] 86, 88 (1923). The present proposition would sidestep this obstacle by transmuting criticism of government, however impersonal it may seem on its face, into personal criticism, and hence potential libel, of the officials of whom the government is composed. There is no legal alchemy by which a State may thus create the cause of action that would otherwise be denied for a publication which, as respondent himself said of the advertisement, "reflects not only on me but on the other Commissioners and the community." Raising as it does the possibility that a good faith critic of government will be penalized for his criticism, the proposition relied on by the Alabama courts strikes at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free expression. [note 30] We hold that such a proposition may not constitutionally be utilized to establish that an otherwise impersonal attack on governmental operations was a libel of an official responsible for those operations. Since it was relied on exclusively here, and there was no other evidence to connect the statements with respondent, the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a finding that the statements referred to respondent.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. [293]
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring.
I concur in reversing this half-million-dollar judgment against the New York Times Company and the four individual defendants. In reversing the Court holds that "the Constitution delimits a State's power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct." Ante, p. 283. I base my vote to reverse on the belief that the First and Fourteenth Amendments not merely "delimit" a State's power to award damages to "public officials against critics of their official conduct" but completely prohibit a State from exercising such a power. The Court goes on to hold that a State can subject such critics to damages if "actual malice" can be proved against them. "Malice," even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment. Unlike the Court, therefore, I vote to reverse exclusively on the ground that the Times and the individual defendants had an absolute, unconditional constitutional right to publish in the Times advertisement their criticisms of the Montgomery agencies and officials. I do not base my vote to reverse on any failure to prove that these individual defendants signed the advertisement or that their criticism of the Police Department was aimed at the plaintiff Sullivan, who was then the Montgomery City Commissioner having supervision of the city's police; for present purposes I assume these things were proved. Nor is my reason for reversal the size of the half-million-dollar judgment, large as it is. If Alabama has constitutional power to use its civil libel law to impose damages on the press for criticizing the way public officials perform or fail [294] to perform their duties, I know of no provision in the Federal Constitution which either expressly or impliedly bars the State from fixing the amount of damages.
The half-million-dollar verdict does give dramatic proof, however, that state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials. The factual background of this case emphasizes the imminence and enormity of that threat. One of the acute and highly emotional issues in this country arises out of efforts of many people, even including some public officials, to continue state-commanded segregation of races in the public schools and other public places, despite our several holdings that such a state practice is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Montgomery is one of the localities in which widespread hostility to desegregation has been manifested. This hostility has sometimes extended itself to persons who favor desegregation, particularly to so-called "outside agitators," a term which can be made to fit papers like the Times, which is published in New York. The scarcity of testimony to show that Commissioner Sullivan suffered any actual damages at all suggests that these feelings of hostility had at least as much to do with rendition of this half-million-dollar verdict as did an appraisal of damages. Viewed realistically, this record lends support to an inference that instead of being damaged Commissioner Sullivan's political, social, and financial prestige has likely been enhanced by the Times' publication. Moreover, a second half-million-dollar libel verdict against the Times based on the same advertisement has already been awarded to another Commissioner. There a jury again gave the full amount claimed. There is no reason to believe that there are not more such huge verdicts lurking just around the corner for the Times or any other newspaper or broadcaster which [295] might dare to criticize public officials. In fact, briefs before us show that in Alabama there are now pending eleven libel suits by local and state officials against the Times seeking $5,600,000, and five such suits against the Columbia Broadcasting System seeking $1,700,000. Moreover, this technique for harassing and punishing a free press--now that it has been shown to be possible--is by no means limited to cases with racial overtones; it can be used in other fields where public feelings may make local as well as out-of-state newspapers easy prey for libel verdict seekers.
In my opinion the Federal Constitution has dealt with this deadly danger to the press in the only way possible without leaving the free press open to destruction--by granting the press an absolute immunity for criticism of the way public officials do their public duty. Compare Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564. Stopgap measures like those the Court adopts are in my judgment not enough. This record certainly does not indicate that any different verdict would have been rendered here whatever the Court had charged the jury about "malice," "truth," "good motives," "justifiable ends," or any other legal formulas which in theory would protect the press. Nor does the record indicate that any of these legalistic words would have caused the courts below to set aside or to reduce the half-million-dollar verdict in any amount.
I agree with the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment made the First applicable to the States.[note 1] This means to me that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment a State has no more power than the Federal Government to use a civil libel law or any other law to impose damages for merely discussing public affairs and criticizing public officials. The power of the United [296] States to do that is, in my judgment, precisely nil. Such was the general view held when the First Amendment was adopted and ever since.[note 2] Congress never has sought to challenge this viewpoint by passing any civil libel law. It did pass the Sedition Act in 1798,[note 3] which made it a crime--"seditious libel"--to criticize federal officials or the Federal Government. As the Court's opinion correctly points out, however, ante, pp. 273-276, that Act came to an ignominious end and by common consent has generally been treated as having been a wholly unjustifiable and much to be regretted violation of the First Amendment. Since the First Amendment is now made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, it no more permits the States to impose damages for libel than it does the Federal Government.
We would, I think, more faithfully interpret the First Amendment by holding that at the very least it leaves the people and the press free to criticize officials and discuss public affairs with impunity. This Nation of ours elects many of its important officials; so do the States, the municipalities, the counties, and even many precincts. These officials are responsible to the people for the way they perform their duties. While our Court has held that some kinds of speech and writings, such as "obscenity," Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, and "fighting words," Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, are not expression within the protection of the First Amendment,[note 4] freedom to discuss public affairs and public officials [297] is unquestionably, as the Court today holds, the kind of speech the First Amendment was primarily designed to keep within the area of free discussion. To punish the exercise of this right to discuss public affairs or to penalize it through libel judgments is to abridge or shut off discussion of the very kind most needed. This Nation, I suspect, can live in peace without libel suits based on public discussions of public affairs and public officials. But I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials. "For a representative democracy ceases to exist the moment that the public functionaries are by any means absolved from their responsibility to their constituents; and this happens whenever the constituent can be restrained in any manner from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions upon any public measure, or upon the conduct of those who may advise or execute it."[note 5] An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.[note 6]
I regret that the Court has stopped short of this holding indispensable to preserve our free press from destruction.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring in the result.
The Court today announces a constitutional standard which prohibits "a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with [298] 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Ante, at 279-280. The Court thus rules that the Constitution gives citizens and newspapers a "conditional privilege" immunizing nonmalicious misstatements of fact regarding the official conduct of a government officer. The impressive array of history [note 1] and precedent marshaled by the Court, however, confirms my belief that the Constitution affords greater protection than that provided by the Court's standard to citizen and press in exercising the right of public criticism.
In my view, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses. The prized American right "to speak one's mind," cf. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, about public officials and affairs needs "breathing space to survive," N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433. The right should not depend upon a probing by the jury of the motivation [note 2] of the citizen or press. The theory [299] of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel.
It has been recognized that "prosecutions for libel on government have [no] place in the American system of jurisprudence." City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 601, 139 N. E. 86, 88. I fully agree. Government, however, is not an abstraction; it is made up of individuals--of governors responsible to the governed. In a democratic society where men are free by ballots to remove those in power, any statement critical of governmental action is necessarily "of and concerning" the governors and any statement critical of the governors' official conduct is necessarily "of and concerning" the government. If the rule that libel on government has no place in our Constitution is to have real meaning, then libel on the official conduct of the governors likewise can have no place in our Constitution.
We must recognize that we are writing upon a clean slate.[note 3] As the Court notes, although there have been [300] "statements of this Court to the effect that the Constitution does not protect libelous publications . . . [n]one of the cases sustained the use of libel laws to impose sanctions upon expression critical of the official conduct of public officials." Ante, at 268. We should be particularly careful, therefore, adequately to protect the liberties which are embodied in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It may be urged that deliberately and maliciously false statements have no conceivable value as free speech. That argument, however, is not responsive to the real issue presented by this case, which is whether that freedom of speech which all agree is constitutionally protected can be effectively safeguarded by a rule allowing the imposition of liability upon a jury's evaluation of the speaker's state of mind. If individual citizens may be held liable in damages for strong words, which a jury finds false and maliciously motivated, there can be little doubt that public debate and advocacy will be constrained. And if newspapers, publishing advertisements dealing with public issues, thereby risk liability, there can also be little doubt that the ability of minority groups to secure publication of their views on public affairs and to seek support for their causes will be greatly diminished. Cf. Farmers Educational & Coop. Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525, 530. The opinion of the Court conclusively demonstrates the chilling effect of the Alabama libel laws on First Amendment freedoms [301] in the area of race relations. The American Colonists were not willing, nor should we be, to take the risk that "[m]en who injure and oppress the people under their administration [and] provoke them to cry out and complain" will also be empowered to "make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions." The Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675, 721-722 (1735) (argument of counsel to the jury). To impose liability for critical, albeit erroneous or even malicious, comments on official conduct would effectively resurrect "the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors." Cf. Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458.
Our national experience teaches that repressions breed hate and "that hate menaces stable government." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (Brandeis, J., concurring). We should be ever mindful of the wise counsel of Chief Justice Hughes:
"[I]mperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government." De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365.
This is not to say that the Constitution protects defamatory statements directed against the private conduct of a public official or private citizen. Freedom of press and of speech insures that government will respond to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by peaceful means. Purely private defamation has little to do with the political ends of a self-governing society. The imposition of liability for private defamation does not [302] abridge the freedom of public speech or any other freedom protected by the First Amendment.[note 4] This, of course, cannot be said "where public officials are concerned or where public matters are involved. . . . [O]ne main function of the First Amendment is to ensure ample opportunity for the people to determine and resolve public issues. Where public matters are involved, the doubts should be resolved in favor of freedom of expression rather than against it." Douglas, The Right of the People (1958), p. 41.
In many jurisdictions, legislators, judges and executive officers are clothed with absolute immunity against liability for defamatory words uttered in the discharge of their public duties. See, e. g., Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564; City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill., at 610, 139 N. E., at 91. Judge Learned Hand ably summarized the policies underlying the rule:
"It does indeed go without saying that an official, who is in fact guilty of using his powers to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good, should not escape liability for the injuries he may so cause; and, if it were possible in practice to confine such complaints to the guilty, it would be monstrous to deny recovery. The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the [303] case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties. Again and again the public interest calls for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake, in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. There must indeed be means of punishing public officers who have been truant to their duties; but that is quite another matter from exposing such as have been honestly mistaken to suit by anyone who has suffered from their errors. As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation. . . .
"The decisions have, indeed, always imposed as a limitation upon the immunity that the official's act must have been within the scope of his powers; and it can be argued that official powers, since they exist only for the public good, never cover occasions where the public good is not their aim, and hence that to exercise a power dishonestly is necessarily to overstep its bounds. A moment's reflection shows, however, that that cannot be the meaning of the limitation without defeating the whole doctrine. What is meant by saying that the officer must be acting within his power cannot be more than that the occasion must be such as would have justified the act, if he had been using his power for any of the purposes on whose account it was vested in him. . . ." Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581. [304]
If the government official should be immune from libel actions so that his ardor to serve the public will not be dampened and "fearless, vigorous, and effective administration of policies of government" not be inhibited, Barr v. Matteo, supra, at 571, then the citizen and the press should likewise be immune from libel actions for their criticism of official conduct. Their ardor as citizens will thus not be dampened and they will be free "to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important."[note 5] If liability can attach to political criticism because it damages the reputation of a public official as a public official, then no critical citizen can safely utter anything but faint praise about the government or its officials. The vigorous criticism by press and citizen of the conduct of the government of the day by the officials of the day will soon yield to silence if officials in control of government agencies, instead of answering criticisms, can resort to friendly juries to forestall criticism of their official conduct.[note 6]
The conclusion that the Constitution affords the citizen and the press an absolute privilege for criticism of official conduct does not leave the public official without defenses against unsubstantiated opinions or deliberate misstatements. "Under our system of government, counterargument and education are the weapons available to expose these matters, not abridgment . . . of free speech . . . ." Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 389. The public [305] official certainly has equal if not greater access than most private citizens to media of communication. In any event, despite the possibility that some excesses and abuses may go unremedied, we must recognize that "the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, [certain] liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310. As Mr. Justice Brandeis correctly observed, "sunlight is the most powerful of all disinfectants."[note 7]
For these reasons, I strongly believe that the Constitution accords citizens and press an unconditional freedom to criticize official conduct. It necessarily follows that in a case such as this, where all agree that the allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct, the judgments for libel cannot constitutionally be sustained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes to the Majority Opinion
1. A copy of the advertisement is printed in the Appendix [omitted].
2. Respondent did not consider the charge of expelling the students to be applicable to him, since "that responsibility rests with the State Department of Education."
3. Approximately 394 copies of the edition of the Times containing the advertisement were circulated in Alabama. Of these, about 35 copies were distributed in Montgomery County. The total circulation of the Times for that day was approximately 650,000 copies.
4. Since we sustain the contentions of all the petitioners under the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, we do not decide the questions presented by the other claims of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The individual petitioners contend that the judgment against them offends the Due Process Clause because there was no evidence to show that they had published or authorized the publication of the alleged libel, and that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses were violated by racial segregation and racial bias in the courtroom. The Times contends that the assumption of jurisdiction over its corporate person by the Alabama courts overreaches the territorial limits of the Due Process Clause. The latter claim is foreclosed from our review by the ruling of the Alabama courts that the Times entered a general appearance in the action, and thus waived its jurisdictional objection; we cannot say that this ruling lacks "fair or substantial support" in prior Alabama decisions. See Thompson v. Wilson, 224 Ala. 299, 140 So. 439 (1932); compare NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 454-458.
5. See American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, § 593, Comment b (1938).
6. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36, 49, and n. 10; Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 48; Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 486-487; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348-349; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 715.
7. Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242.
8. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331.
9. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353.
10. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229.
11. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476.
12. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415.
13. See also Mill, On Liberty (Oxford: Blackwell, 1947), at 47: ". . . [T]o argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion . . . , all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent that it is rarely possible, on adequate grounds, conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable, and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct."
14. The climate in which public officials operate, especially during a political campaign, has been described by one commentator in the following terms: "Charges of gross incompetence, disregard of the public interest, communist sympathies, and the like usually have filled the air, and hints of bribery, embezzlement, and other criminal conduct are not infrequent. "Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875 (1949). For a similar description written 60 years earlier, see Chase, Criticism of Public Officers and Candidates for Office, 23 Am.L.Rev. 346 (1889).
15. The Report on the Virginia Resolutions further stated:
[I]t is manifestly impossible to punish the intent to bring those who administer the government into disrepute or contempt, without striking at the right of freely discussing public characters and measures, . . . which, again, is equivalent to a protection of those who administer the government, if they should at any time deserve the contempt or hatred of the people, against being exposed to it by free animadversions on their characters and conduct. Nor can there be a doubt . . . that a government thus entrenched in penal statutes against the just and natural effects of a culpable administration will easily evade the responsibility which is essential to a faithful discharge of its duty.
Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing the members of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government. The value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust, and on the equal freedom, consequently, of examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidates respectively. 4 Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 575.
16. The Act expired by its terms in 1801.
17. Cf. Farmers Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525, 535.
18. The Times states that four other libel suits based on the advertisement have been filed against it by others who have served as Montgomery City Commissioners and by the Governor of Alabama; that another $500,000 verdict has been awarded in the only one of these cases that has yet gone to trial, and that the damages sought in the other three total $2,000,000.
19. Even a false statement may be deemed to make a valuable contribution to public debate, since it brings about "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." Mill, On Liberty (Oxford: Blackwell, 1947), at 15; see also Milton, Areopagitia, in Prose Works (Yale, 1959), Vol. II, at 561.
20. E.g., Ponder v. Cobb, 257 N.C. 281, 299, 126 S.E.2d 67, 80 (1962); Lawrence v. Fox, 357 Mich. 134, 146, 97 N.W.2d 719, 725 (1959); Stice v. Beacon Newspaper Corp., 185 Kan. 61, 65-67, 340 P.2d 396, 400-401 (1959); Bailey v. Charleston Mail Assn., 126 W.Va. 292, 307, 27 S.E.2d 837, 844 (1943); Salinger v. Cowles, 195 Iowa 873, 889, 191 N.W. 167, 174 (1922); Snively v. Record Publishing Co., 185 Cal. 565, 571-576, 198 P. 1 (1921); McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 175 N.W. 878 (1920). Applying the same rule to candidates for public office, see, e.g., Phoenix Newspapers v. Choisser, 82 Ariz. 271, 276-277, 312 P.2d 150, 154 (1957); Friedell v. Blakely Printing Co., 163 Minn. 226, 230, 203 N.W. 974, 975 (1925). And see Chagnon v. Union-Leader Corp., 103 N.H. 426, 438, 174 A.2d 825, 833 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 830.
The consensus of scholarly opinion apparently favors the rule that is here adopted. E.g., Harper and James, Torts, § 5.26, at 449-450 (1956); Noel, Defamation of Public Officers and Candidates, 49 Col.L.Rev. 875, 891-895, 897, 903 (1949); Hallen, Fair Comment, 8 Tex.L.Rev. 41, 61 (1929); Smith, Charges Against Candidates, 18 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 115 (1919); Chase, Criticism of Public Officers and Candidates for Office, 23 Am.L.Rev. 346, 367-371 (1889); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (7th ed., Lane, 1903), at 604, 616-628. But see, e.g., American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts, § 598, Comment a (1938) (reversing the position taken in Tentative Draft 13, § 1041(2) (1936)); Veeder, Freedom of Public Discussion, 23 Harv.L.Rev. 413, 419 (1910).
21. The privilege immunizing honest misstatements of fact is often referred to as a "conditional" privilege, to distinguish it from the "absolute" privilege recognized in judicial, legislative, administrative and executive proceedings. See, e.g., Prosser, Torts (2d ed., 1955), § 95.
22. See 1 Harper and James, Torts, § 5.23, at 429-430 (1956); Prosser, Torts (2d ed., 1955), at 612-613; American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts (1938), § 591.
23. We have no occasion here to determine how far down into the lower ranks of government employees the "public official" designation would extend for purposes of this rule, or otherwise to specify categories of persons who would or would not be included. Cf. Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 573-575. Nor need we here determine the boundaries of the "official conduct" concept. It is enough for the present case that respondent's position as an elected city commissioner clearly made him a public official, and that the allegations in the advertisement concerned what was allegedly his official conduct as Commissioner in charge of the Police Department. As to the statements alleging the assaulting of Dr. King and the bombing of his home, it is immaterial that they might not be considered to involve respondent's official conduct if he himself had been accused of perpetrating the assault and the bombing. Respondent does not claim that the statements charged him personally with these acts; his contention is that the advertisement connects him with them only in his official capacity as the Commissioner supervising the police, on the theory that the police might be equated with the "They" who did the bombing and assaulting. Thus, if these allegations can be read as referring to respondent at all, they must be read as describing his performance of his official duties.
24. Johnson Publishing Co. v. Davis, 271 Ala. 474, 487, 124 So.2d 441, 450 (1960). Thus, the trial judge here instructed the jury that "mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice or malice, in fact, and does not justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an action for libel." The court refused, however, to give the following instruction which had been requested by the Times:
I charge you . . . that punitive damages, as the name indicates, are designed to punish the defendant, the New York Times Company, a corporation, and the other defendants in this case, . . . and I further charge you that such punitive damages may be awarded only in the event that you, the jury, are convinced by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant . . . was motivated by personal ill will, that is actual intent to do the plaintiff harm, or that the defendant . . . was guilty of gross negligence and recklessness, and not of just ordinary negligence or carelessness in publishing the matter complained of so as to indicate a wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights.
The trial court's error in failing to require any finding of actual malice for an award of general damages makes it unnecessary for us to consider the sufficiency under the federal standard of the instructions regarding actual malice that were given as to punitive damages.
25. Accord, Coleman v. MacLennan, supra, 78 Kan., at 741, 98 P. at 292; Gough v. Tribune-Journal Co., 75 Idaho 502, 510, 275 P.2d 663, 668 (1954).
26. The Seventh Amendment does not, as respondent contends, preclude such an examination by this Court. That Amendment, providing that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law," is applicable to state cases coming here. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 242-243; cf. The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274. But its ban on reexamination of facts does not preclude us from determining whether governing rules of federal law have been properly applied to the facts. "[T]his Court will review the finding of facts by a State court . . . where a conclusion of law as to a Federal right and a finding of fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the Federal question, to analyze the facts." Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380, 385-386. See also Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515-516.
27. The Times has set forth in a booklet its "Advertising Acceptability Standards." Listed among the classes of advertising that the newspaper does not accept are advertisements that are "fraudulent or deceptive," that are "ambiguous in wording and . . . may mislead," and that contain "attacks of a personal character." In replying to respondent's interrogatories before the trial, the Secretary of the Times stated that, "as the advertisement made no attacks of a personal character upon any individual and otherwise met the advertising acceptability standards promulgated," it had been approved for publication.
Respondent's own testimony was that "as Commissioner of Public Affairs it is part of my duty to supervise the Police Department and I certainly feel like it [a statement] is associated with me when it describes police activities." He thought that "by virtue of being [290] Police Commissioner and Commissioner of Public Affairs," he was charged with "any activity on the part of the Police Department." "When it describes police action, certainly I feel it reflects on me as an individual." He added that "It is my feeling that it reflects not only on me but on the other Commissioners and the community." Grover C. Hall testified that to him the third paragraph of the advertisement called to mind "the City government--the Commissioners," and that "now that you ask it I would naturally think a little more about the police Commissioner because his responsibility is exclusively with the constabulary." It was "the phrase about starvation" that led to the association; "the other didn't hit me with any particular force." Arnold D. Blackwell testified that the third paragraph was associated in his mind with "the Police Commissioner and the police force. The people on the police force." If he had believed the statement about the padlocking of the dining hall, he would have thought "that the people on our police force or the heads of our police force were acting without their jurisdiction and would not be competent for the position." "I would assume that the Commissioner had ordered the police force to do that and therefore it would be his responsibility." Harry W. Kaminsky associated the statement about "truckloads of police" with respondent "because he is the Police Commissioner." He thought that the reference to arrests in the sixth paragraph "implicates the Police Department, I think, or the authorities that would do that--arrest folks for speeding and loitering and such as that." Asked whether he would associate with respondent a newspaper report that the police had "beat somebody up or assaulted them on the streets of Montgomery," he replied: "I still say he is the Police Commissioner and those men are working directly under him and therefore I would think that he would have something to do with it." In general, he said, "I look at Mr. Sullivan when I see the Police Department." H. M. Price, Sr., testified that he associated the first sentence of the third paragraph with respondent because: "I would just automatically consider that the Police Commissioner in Montgomery would have to put his approval on those kind of things as an individual." William M. Parker, Jr., testified that he associated the statements in the two paragraph with "the Commissioners of the City of Montgomery," and since respondent "was the Police Commissioner," he "thought of him first." He told the examining counsel: "I think if you were the Police Commissioner I would have thought it was speaking of you." Horace W. White, respondent's former employer, testified that the statement about "truck-loads of police" made him think of respondent "as being the head of the Police Department." Asked whether he read the statement as charging respondent himself with ringing the campus or having shotguns and tear-gas, he replied: "Well, I thought of his department being charged with it, yes, sir. He is the head of the Police Department as I understand it." He further said that the reason he would have been unwilling to re-employ respondent if he had believed the advertisement was "the fact that he allowed the Police Department to do the things that the paper say he did."
29. Compare Ponder v. Cobb, 257 N.C. 281, 126 S.E.2d 67 (1962).
30. Insofar as the proposition means only that the statements about police conduct libeled respondent by implicitly criticizing his ability to run the Police Department, recovery is also precluded in this case by the doctrine of fair comment. See American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts (1938), § 607. Since the Fourteenth Amendment requires recognition of the conditional privilege for honest misstatements of fact, it follows that a defense of fair comment must be afforded for honest expression of opinion based upon privileged, as well as true, statements of fact. Both defenses are, of course, defeasible if the public official proves actual malice, as was not done here.
Footnotes to Justice Black's Opinion
1. See cases collected in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 530 (concurring opinion).
2. See, e. g., 1 Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), 297-299 (editor's appendix). St. George Tucker, a distinguished Virginia jurist, took part in the Annapolis Convention of 1786, sat on both state and federal courts, and was widely known for his writings on judicial and constitutional subjects.
3. Act of July 14, 1798, 1 Stat. 596.
4. But see Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 155 (concurring opinion); Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 508 (dissenting opinion).
5. 1 Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), 297 (editor's appendix); cf. Brant, Seditious Libel: Myth and Reality, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1.
6. Cf. Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948).
Footnotes to Justice Goldberg's Opinion
1. I fully agree with the Court that the attack upon the validity of the Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596, "has carried the day in the court of history," ante, at 276, and that the Act would today be declared unconstitutional. It should be pointed out, however, that the Sedition Act proscribed writings which were "false, scandalous and malicious." (Emphasis added.) For prosecutions under the Sedition Act charging malice, see, e. g., Trial of Matthew Lyon (1798), in Wharton, State Trials of the United States (1849), p. 333: Trial of Thomas Cooper (1800), in id., at 659; Trial of Anthony Haswell (1800), in id., at 684; Trial of James Thompson Callender (1800), in id., at 688.
2. The requirement of proving actual malice or reckless disregard may, in the mind of the jury, add little to the requirement of proving falsity, a requirement which the Court recognizes not to be an adequate safeguard. The thought suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 92-93, is relevant here: "[A]s a matter of either practice or philosophy I do not see how [299] we can separate an issue as to what is believed from considerations as to what is believable. The most convincing proof that one believes his statements is to show that they have been true in his experience. Likewise, that one knowingly falsified is best proved by showing that what he said happened never did happen." See note 4, infra.
3. It was not until Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, decided in 1925, that it was intimated that the freedom of speech guaranteed by [300] the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. Other intimations followed. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380. In 1931 Chief Justice Hughes speaking for the Court in Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368, declared: "It has been determined that the conception of liberty under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of free speech." Thus we deal with a constitutional principle enunciated less than four decades ago, and consider for the first time the application of that principle to issues arising in libel cases brought by state officials.
4. In most cases, as in the case at bar, there will be little difficulty in distinguishing defamatory speech relating to private conduct from that relating to official conduct. I recognize, of course, that there will be a gray area. The difficulties of applying a public-private standard are, however, certainly of a different genre from those attending the differentiation between a malicious and nonmalicious state of mind. If the constitutional standard is to be shaped by a concept of malice, the speaker takes the risk not only that the jury will inaccurately determine his state of mind but also that the jury will fail properly to apply the constitutional standard set by the elusive concept of malice. See note 2, supra.
5. MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurring in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 577, observed that: "The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed public officials or employees. Such an informed understanding depends, of course, on the freedom people have to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important."
6. See notes 2, 4, supra.
7. See Freund, The Supreme Court of the United States (1949), p. 61.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck
Freedom of Speech in the United States, 6th ed.
State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009
www.bc.edu/free_speech
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Public Officers's Duty
Public Officers you must adhear to the following:
(Loyalty Oath, "Oath of Office") and (Official Bond)
Required by:
All Public Officers of Local Government.
ARS Title 11 Sec. 251
See Source Law:
1912 Arizona Session Law, 1901
Arizona State Constitution Art. 6 Sec. 26 & 28.
Public Officers's Duty
Public Officers you must adhear to the following:
(Loyalty Oath, "Oath of Office") and (Official Bond)
Required by:
All Public Officers of Local Government.
ARS Title 11 Sec. 251
See Source Law:
1912 Arizona Session Law, 1901
Arizona State Constitution Art. 6 Sec. 26 & 28.
Links - Organizations Protecting America's Liberties
Links Websites that protect and stand for The People of America!
http://www.richardmack.com/Official Website or visit: http://www.oathkeepers.com/
http://www.infowars.com/ - Alex Jones
http://www.glenbeck.com/ - Glen Beck
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.nobadjudges.blogspot.com/
www.theorator.com/government/govlinks.html
http://www.northwoodspatriots.blogspot.com/
http://www.teapartyexpress.org/
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Fight the Left!
For too long, the organized forces of the liberal Left have dominated the grassroots political landscape and delivered huge victories for candidates and policies that grow government and reduce our freedom...
WE are looking for leaders to help us build our network in all 50 states: a grassroots juggernaut capable of going toe-to-toe with the unions, extreme enviros, and the MoveOn.org's of the world.
http://www.freedomworks.org/take-action
Freedom & Liberty Books:
www.gunlaws.com/books.htm#gloa
http://www.richardmack.com/Official Website or visit: http://www.oathkeepers.com/
http://www.infowars.com/ - Alex Jones
http://www.glenbeck.com/ - Glen Beck
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.nobadjudges.blogspot.com/
www.theorator.com/government/govlinks.html
http://www.northwoodspatriots.blogspot.com/
http://www.teapartyexpress.org/
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
Fight the Left!
For too long, the organized forces of the liberal Left have dominated the grassroots political landscape and delivered huge victories for candidates and policies that grow government and reduce our freedom...
WE are looking for leaders to help us build our network in all 50 states: a grassroots juggernaut capable of going toe-to-toe with the unions, extreme enviros, and the MoveOn.org's of the world.
http://www.freedomworks.org/take-action
Freedom & Liberty Books:
www.gunlaws.com/books.htm#gloa
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Oath of Office for Public Officers of Nevada
Operation Oath
Check here (104th vote) to see the Representaives that violated their Oath of Office. Each one should be removed from office for Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. §1621).
UNDERSTANDING THE OATH OF OFFICE
Understanding the law(s) and the requirements on the “Oath of Office”. A.k.a; the Office of Public Trust. Why it is important that we understand the required “Oath” and hold those accountable that will infringe on any of the “Bill of Rights”.
All governmental officers, Federal and State officers are only official when they are acting under Art. 6 Sec. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of Amercia.
All official Federal governmental officers are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by Law.
After taking the required oath, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, that person is now an official (federal government). The same person that has taken the required oath is now acting under Color of Law and Color of Office.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No Judge Oath - Judge's Decision Void
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050706VoidDecision.html
Section 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an
individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of
the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if
he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of
government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike,
against the Government of the United States or the government of
the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the
Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the
government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year and a day, or both.
Check your States Constitution and Laws on the Oath of Office
In the State of NEVADA:
All governmental officers: State, City and County are only official when they are acting under THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA: ARTICLE. 15. Sec 2.
State of Constitution for the Nevada: ARTICLE. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec 2. Oath of office.
All NEVADA officials are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 282.020.
Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
In suites against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In suits against federal officers.
CHECK YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."
42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
(1) Preventing officer performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242.
"Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person - or object - related to an officium, v., since the Romans the staff of a high office bearer such as a governor) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working space with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participating in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). An elected official is a person who is an official by virtue of an election; officials may also be appointed, ex officio (i.e. by virtue of another office, often in a specified capacity, such as presiding, advisory, secretary), cooptated, or sometimes hereditary.
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice aforethought is an element of the crime of murder in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"}, R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the Malice Standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil liberties campaign. The Malice Standard decides whether press reports can be considered defamation or libel.
Treason
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation).
"Traitor" redirects here. For other uses, see Traitor (disambiguation)
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.
Infringed / Infringement
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right.
Bill of Rights
n. the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution demanded by several states in return for ratifying the Constitution, since the failure to protect these rights was a glaring omission in the Constitution as adopted in convention in 1787. Adopted and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights are: First: Prohibits laws establishing a religion (separation of church and state), and bans laws which would restrict freedom of religion, speech, press (now interpreted as covering all media), right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Second: A "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Oath of Office
(Read Marbury v. Madison)
To Be (loyal) or not to Be (loyal)
That is the real question
We may be amateur historians, legal professors on Constitutional law, nevertheless, it makes us upset to see our government of today undermining and being disloyal to the Authors principals and intent to an central Government. All Federal and State officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United states." The promise to adhere to the Constitution means to adhere to that and nothing else besides! Divided and diluted patriotism is NOT what the Authors had in mind when they prescribed the basic Oath of Office. (US Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3. REQUIREMENT). An American public servant who trespasses outside the bounds of his/her Oath of Office is being adulterous toward their country. A restrictive activist is loyal and guards with jealous by its very nature. No one can serve two masters or be true to more the one wife. Federalist
Number 10, a thumbnail matter of this:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, form which the rights of property originates, is not less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government”. (Are required to protect and defend the Bill of Rights)
And how falsely they have been in their Oaths of Office to “support and defend the Constitution”! and The Bill of Rights. They have betrayed, mistrust and it is disloyalty. It is crime of perjury, and perjury is a statute by law. Read for yourself:
(U.S. Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3., Oath Of Office REQUIREMENT)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this constitution.
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 23. Presiding officer of Senate may administer oaths
STATUTE
The presiding officer, for the time being, of the Senate of the United States, shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations that are or may be required by the Constitution, or by law, to be taken by any Senator, officer of the Senate, witness, or other person, in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
2 USC Sec. 25
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 25. Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates
STATUTE
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
2 USC Sec. 35
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 3
Sec. 35. Salaries payable monthly after taking oath
STATUTE
Each Member and Delegate, after he has taken and subscribed the required oath, is entitled to receive his salary at the end of each month. (Question; is this the only reason they take this "oath"?)
4 USC Sec. 101
TITLE 4
CHAPTER 4
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
STATUTE
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.'
5 USC Sec. 2903
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart A
CHAPTER 29
SUBCHAPTER I
Sec. 2903. Oath; authority to administer
-STATUTE-
(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.
(b) An employee of an Executive agency designated in writing by the head of the Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department with respect to an employee of his department, may administer -
(1) the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, incident to entrance into the executive branch; or
(2) any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch.
(c) An oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States may be administered by -
(1) the Vice President; or
(2) an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United
States where the oath is administered.
*[71 U.S. 333, 334] ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by 'An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,'1 enacted:
'That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
Prescribed oath of July, 1862. During the War between the States
* "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to [71 U.S. 333, 335] persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.* And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;'
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
* Footnote, no longer prescribed in today's oath. This was the fully prescribed oath of July, 1862. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 01/06/97
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
Sec. 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
5 U.S.C. Sec. 8312 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart G - Insurance and Annuities
CHAPTER 83 - RETIREMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
-STATUTE-
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual -
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies -
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based. (2) An offense within the purview of -
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article 104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia -
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of -
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A) of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States; or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee in connection with a matter under inquiry before the congressional committee involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273 (violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275 (receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the annuity or retired pay concerned -
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of this subsection. (2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney, alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to be paid by the department or agency concerned.
Constitution for the State
of Nevada
ARTICLE. 15.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. Carson City seat of government.
2. Oath of office.
3. Eligibility for public office.
4. Perpetuities; eleemosynary purposes.
5. Time of general election.
6. Number of members of legislature limited.
7. County offices at county seats.
8. Publication of general statutes and opinions of supreme court; effective date of opinions of supreme court.
9. Increase or decrease of compensation of officers whose compensation fixed by constitution.
10. Election or appointment of officers.
11. Term of office when not fixed by constitution; limitation; municipal officers and employees.
12. Certain state officers to keep offices at Carson City.
13. Census by legislature and Congress: Basis of representation in houses of legislature.
14. Election by plurality.
15. Merit system governing employment in executive branch of state government.
Section. 1. Carson City seat of government. The seat of Government shall be at Carson City, but no appropriation for the erection or purchase of Capitol buildings shall be made during the next three Years[.]
Section 2. Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Members of county game management boards are public officers and upon appointment are required to take constitutional oath of office. AGO 352 (11-5-1954)
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any
other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint,
deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of
securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or
effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which
is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.140 Use of fictitious name on affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs, or causes to be made, executed or signed, any affidavit, complaint or other instrument, in
writing, before any United States officer or person, or before any state officer or person, authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with
the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods,
chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, and signs the same
by any other name than his or her true name, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.145 Statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury. A person who, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury:
1. Makes a willful and false statement in a matter material to the issue or point in question; or
2. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true, or who suborns another to make in such a declaration a statement of the kind described in subsection 1 or 2, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.150 Attempt to suborn perjury. Every person who, without giving, offering or promising a bribe, shall incite or attempt to procure
another to commit perjury, or to offer any false evidence, or to withhold true testimony, though no perjury be committed or false evidence offered or
true testimony withheld, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 199.160 Procuring the execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury. A person who, by willful and corrupt perjury or
subornation of perjury, procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person is guilty of murder which is a category A felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:
1. For life without the possibility of parole;
2. For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or
3. For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.
NRS 199.170 Oath and swear defined.
1. The term oath shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to swear thereto.
As a nation we are used to seeing “In God We Trust” on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme “truth equals freedom.” and we have heard “Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free.” Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God!
I don't think that God chose us as his people, it's that we chose God. And it will mean and always will mean, so long as we remain a nation, that we Americans have taken God as a foundation for our political philosophy and for our nationalism. And that's why the last four words in the prescribed Oath of Offices says, “so help me God”!
So what can we do? Our goal is to bring our national Government back to the Authors intent. A true Republic form of Constitutional Government. This can only be done with the help of concerned citizens. We must stand together in numbers, then and only then will the national Government listen to what we have to say. “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Public Servants elected to Congress must be held accountable for their actions while in office.
A true American God fearing patriot
Gary W, De Capua / President of the C.R.T.F. / N.N.
Does No mean No?
SEVER ABILITY
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary
adj. Capable of being severed or separated; separable into legally distinct rights or obligations, as a contract. --sev”er?a?bil“i?ty n.
INFRINGE
(a) --tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. --intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: to neglect to obey; as to infringe a law; an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. [Latin ºnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see IN-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- below.] --in?fring“er n.
NO
(b) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. --no n., pl. noes (n½z). 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. [Middle English, from Old English n³ : ne, not; see ne below + ³, ever; see aiw- below.] no2 (n½) adj. 1. Not any; not one; not a: No cookies are left. 2. Not at all; not close to being: He is no child. 3. Hardly any: got there in no time flat.
NOT
(c)adv. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.
SHALL
aux.v. past tense should (sh‹d). 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show: a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come. 2. Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
Severability
Nevada's Law...NRS 0.020
0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.
1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statue or required by the context:
(b) “May not” or “no” abridges or removes a right, privilege or power.
(d) “shall” imposes a duty to act.
(e) “shall not” imposes a prohibition against acting.
Those who are bound by Oath of office with limited delegation of authority must obey and protect it; The Constitution for the united States of America.
A judge has no authority to act until he has taken the oath of office; until he takes the required oath his acts are a nullity, Mancus says, referring to French v. Texas (1978) 572 S.W.2d 934, 939. In that case, a search warrant issued by a judge who had not taken the required oath of office was void and evidence seized under the warrant was inadmissible. Mancus says that Brown v. State (1951) 238 S.W.2d 787, 33, the court held a judge is without authority to act until he takes the oath required by the Constitution.
Why then, does our Government undermine the framers of the Constitution, and those men who fought and lost their lives to protect this great document and country against socialistic tyrants. When Government will not uphold their Oath of office, then they wear the same cloth as those tyrants.. Our Constitution does not give our Government the authority to undermine or rewrite the Constitution for the united States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is to guarantee our protection from capricious, rapacious, incompetent, and uncaring government.
Learn to defend your RIGHTS
This is why we need to make the Oath of Office a relevant issue
Please sign the PETITION
Repeal the GUN BAN
Check here (104th vote) to see the Representaives that violated their Oath of Office. Each one should be removed from office for Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. §1621).
UNDERSTANDING THE OATH OF OFFICE
Understanding the law(s) and the requirements on the “Oath of Office”. A.k.a; the Office of Public Trust. Why it is important that we understand the required “Oath” and hold those accountable that will infringe on any of the “Bill of Rights”.
All governmental officers, Federal and State officers are only official when they are acting under Art. 6 Sec. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of Amercia.
All official Federal governmental officers are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331.
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by Law.
After taking the required oath, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, that person is now an official (federal government). The same person that has taken the required oath is now acting under Color of Law and Color of Office.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No Judge Oath - Judge's Decision Void
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050706VoidDecision.html
Section 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an
individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of
the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if
he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of
government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the
overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike,
against the Government of the United States or the government of
the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the
Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the
government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year and a day, or both.
Check your States Constitution and Laws on the Oath of Office
In the State of NEVADA:
All governmental officers: State, City and County are only official when they are acting under THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA: ARTICLE. 15. Sec 2.
State of Constitution for the Nevada: ARTICLE. 15. Miscellaneous Provisions. Sec 2. Oath of office.
All NEVADA officials are acting under color of law and color of office if they hold an office under The Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 282.020.
Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
In suites against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In suits against federal officers.
CHECK YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment."
42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:
(1) Preventing officer performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. [History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.]
This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose.
Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980).
U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242.
"Whoever, under color of any law, ... willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
Color of office
Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.
Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do.
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
An official (from the Latin Officialis, person - or object - related to an officium, v., since the Romans the staff of a high office bearer such as a governor) is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office (i.e. function, mandate, regardless whether it carries a working space with it) in an organisation, of any kind, but participating in the exercise of authority (either his own or that of his superior and/or employer, public or legally private). An elected official is a person who is an official by virtue of an election; officials may also be appointed, ex officio (i.e. by virtue of another office, often in a specified capacity, such as presiding, advisory, secretary), cooptated, or sometimes hereditary.
Malice (legal term)
Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.
In many kinds of cases, malice must be found to exist in order to convict (for example malice aforethought is an element of the crime of murder in many jurisdictions). In civil law cases, a finding of malice allows for the award of greater damages, or for punitive damages. The legal concept of malice is most common in Anglo-American law, and in legal systems derived from the English common law system.
In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance in a public office includes Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] A.C. 158; Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716; Jones v Swansea City Council [1990] 1 WLR 1453; Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2000][1] and Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1995] 2 QB 335 in which Steyn LJ. found that malice could be made out if the acts were done with an actual intention to cause injury. Malice could be shown if the acts were done in the knowledge of invalidity or lack of power and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity or lack of power and that likely injury. These elements, with respect, are consistent with the views of the majority albeit that some of those views were expressed tentatively having regard to the basis upon which the case before them was presented.
In English criminal law on mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"}, R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 was the pivotal case in establishing both that the test for "maliciously" was subjective rather than objective, and that malice was inevitably linked to recklessness. In that case, a man released gas from the mains into adjoining houses while attempting to steal money from the pay-meter:
In any statutory definition of a crime, malice must be taken ... as requiring either:
(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it).
Lord Diplock confirmed the relationship to recklessness in R v Mowatt (1968) 1 QB 421:
In the offence under section 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.
In the United States, the Malice Standard was set in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, allowing free reporting of the civil liberties campaign. The Malice Standard decides whether press reports can be considered defamation or libel.
Treason
For other uses, see Treason (disambiguation).
"Traitor" redirects here. For other uses, see Traitor (disambiguation)
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.
Infringed / Infringement
A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right.
Bill of Rights
n. the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution demanded by several states in return for ratifying the Constitution, since the failure to protect these rights was a glaring omission in the Constitution as adopted in convention in 1787. Adopted and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights are: First: Prohibits laws establishing a religion (separation of church and state), and bans laws which would restrict freedom of religion, speech, press (now interpreted as covering all media), right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Second: A "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
EXPOSING THE TRUTH
Oath of Office
(Read Marbury v. Madison)
To Be (loyal) or not to Be (loyal)
That is the real question
We may be amateur historians, legal professors on Constitutional law, nevertheless, it makes us upset to see our government of today undermining and being disloyal to the Authors principals and intent to an central Government. All Federal and State officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United states." The promise to adhere to the Constitution means to adhere to that and nothing else besides! Divided and diluted patriotism is NOT what the Authors had in mind when they prescribed the basic Oath of Office. (US Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3. REQUIREMENT). An American public servant who trespasses outside the bounds of his/her Oath of Office is being adulterous toward their country. A restrictive activist is loyal and guards with jealous by its very nature. No one can serve two masters or be true to more the one wife. Federalist
Number 10, a thumbnail matter of this:
“The diversity in the faculties of men, form which the rights of property originates, is not less an insuperable obstacle to the uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government”. (Are required to protect and defend the Bill of Rights)
And how falsely they have been in their Oaths of Office to “support and defend the Constitution”! and The Bill of Rights. They have betrayed, mistrust and it is disloyalty. It is crime of perjury, and perjury is a statute by law. Read for yourself:
(U.S. Constitution., Article VI. Sec. 3., Oath Of Office REQUIREMENT)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this constitution.
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 23. Presiding officer of Senate may administer oaths
STATUTE
The presiding officer, for the time being, of the Senate of the United States, shall have power to administer all oaths and affirmations that are or may be required by the Constitution, or by law, to be taken by any Senator, officer of the Senate, witness, or other person, in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate.
2 USC Sec. 25
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 2
Sec. 25. Oath of Speaker, Members, and Delegates
STATUTE
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.
The Clerk of the House of Representatives of the Eightieth and each succeeding Congress shall cause the oath of office to be printed, furnishing two copies to each Member and Delegate who has taken the oath of office in accordance with law, which shall be subscribed in person by the Member or Delegate, who shall thereupon deliver them to the Clerk, one to be filed in the records of the House of Representatives, and the other to be recorded in the Journal of the House and in the Congressional Record; and such signed copies, or certified copies thereof, or of either of such records thereof, shall be admissible in evidence in any court of the United States, and shall be held conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the oath of office in accordance with law.
2 USC Sec. 35
TITLE 2
CHAPTER 3
Sec. 35. Salaries payable monthly after taking oath
STATUTE
Each Member and Delegate, after he has taken and subscribed the required oath, is entitled to receive his salary at the end of each month. (Question; is this the only reason they take this "oath"?)
4 USC Sec. 101
TITLE 4
CHAPTER 4
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
STATUTE
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.'
5 USC Sec. 2903
TITLE 5
PART III
Subpart A
CHAPTER 29
SUBCHAPTER I
Sec. 2903. Oath; authority to administer
-STATUTE-
(a) The oath of office required by section 3331 of this title may be administered by an individual authorized by the laws of the United States or local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United States where the oath is administered.
(b) An employee of an Executive agency designated in writing by the head of the Executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department with respect to an employee of his department, may administer -
(1) the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title, incident to entrance into the executive branch; or
(2) any other oath required by law in connection with employment in the executive branch.
(c) An oath authorized or required under the laws of the United States may be administered by -
(1) the Vice President; or
(2) an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths in the State, District, or territory or possession of the United
States where the oath is administered.
*[71 U.S. 333, 334] ON the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by 'An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes,'1 enacted:
'That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
Prescribed oath of July, 1862. During the War between the States
* "I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to [71 U.S. 333, 335] persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto.* And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;'
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
* Footnote, no longer prescribed in today's oath. This was the fully prescribed oath of July, 1862. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331
5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 01/06/97
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart B - Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 33 - EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - OATH OF OFFICE
Sec. 3331. Oath of office
Statute
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: ''I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
'Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury; and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States.'
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 79 - PERJURY
Sec. 1621. Perjury generally
Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
5 U.S.C. Sec. 8312 01/26/98
TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART III - EMPLOYEES
Subpart G - Insurance and Annuities
CHAPTER 83 - RETIREMENT
SUBCHAPTER II - FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY
Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
-STATUTE-
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual -
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection; or (2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies -
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this section, to the period after the date of conviction or after September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794 (gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy), 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based. (2) An offense within the purview of -
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article 104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia -
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of -
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection; or (ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A) of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States; or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee in connection with a matter under inquiry before the congressional committee involving or relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of -
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273 (violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275 (receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the annuity or retired pay concerned -
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of this subsection. (2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney, alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (FOOTNOTE 1) (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to be paid by the department or agency concerned.
Constitution for the State
of Nevada
ARTICLE. 15.
Miscellaneous Provisions.
Sec. 1. Carson City seat of government.
2. Oath of office.
3. Eligibility for public office.
4. Perpetuities; eleemosynary purposes.
5. Time of general election.
6. Number of members of legislature limited.
7. County offices at county seats.
8. Publication of general statutes and opinions of supreme court; effective date of opinions of supreme court.
9. Increase or decrease of compensation of officers whose compensation fixed by constitution.
10. Election or appointment of officers.
11. Term of office when not fixed by constitution; limitation; municipal officers and employees.
12. Certain state officers to keep offices at Carson City.
13. Census by legislature and Congress: Basis of representation in houses of legislature.
14. Election by plurality.
15. Merit system governing employment in executive branch of state government.
Section. 1. Carson City seat of government. The seat of Government shall be at Carson City, but no appropriation for the erection or purchase of Capitol buildings shall be made during the next three Years[.]
Section 2. Oath of office. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ................, do solemnly [solemnly] swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Members of county game management boards are public officers and upon appointment are required to take constitutional oath of office. AGO 352 (11-5-1954)
STATUE
NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective, offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
I, ........, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ........., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God: (if an affirmation) under the [pains and penalties of perjury.
NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins.
NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be:
NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions.
NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, constsented to suit upon offical bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964)
PERJURY AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
NRS 199.120 Definition; penalties. A person, having taken a lawful oath or made affirmation in a judicial proceeding or in any other matter where, by law, an oath or affirmation is required and no other penalty is prescribed, who:
1. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true;
2. Swears or affirms willfully and falsely in a matter material to the issue or point in question;
4. Executes an affidavit pursuant to NRS 15.010 which contains a false statement, or suborns any other person to do so; or
5. Executes an affidavit or other instrument which contains a false statement before a person authorized to administer oaths or suborns any
other person to do so, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.130 False affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs or causes to be made, executed or signed, any false or fictitious affidavit, complaint,
deposition, or other instrument in writing before any officer or person authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with the intent of
securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods, chattels or
effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, is guilty of perjury which
is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.140 Use of fictitious name on affidavit or complaint to effect arrest or search.
1. A person who makes, executes or signs, or causes to be made, executed or signed, any affidavit, complaint or other instrument, in
writing, before any United States officer or person, or before any state officer or person, authorized to administer oaths, for the purpose or with
the intent of securing a warrant for the arrest of any other person, or for the purpose of securing a warrant for the searching of the premises, goods,
chattels or effects, or of seizing the goods, chattels or effects, or of seizing anything in the possession of any other person, and signs the same
by any other name than his or her true name, is guilty of perjury which is a category D felony.
2. A person who commits any of the acts or offenses defined or set out in subsection 1 shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.145 Statement made in declaration under penalty of perjury. A person who, in a declaration made under penalty of perjury:
1. Makes a willful and false statement in a matter material to the issue or point in question; or
2. Willfully makes an unqualified statement of that which he does not know to be true, or who suborns another to make in such a declaration a statement of the kind described in subsection 1 or 2, is guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury, as the case may be, which is a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
NRS 199.150 Attempt to suborn perjury. Every person who, without giving, offering or promising a bribe, shall incite or attempt to procure
another to commit perjury, or to offer any false evidence, or to withhold true testimony, though no perjury be committed or false evidence offered or
true testimony withheld, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
NRS 199.160 Procuring the execution of innocent person by perjury or subornation of perjury. A person who, by willful and corrupt perjury or
subornation of perjury, procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person is guilty of murder which is a category A felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:
1. For life without the possibility of parole;
2. For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or
3. For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.
NRS 199.170 Oath and swear defined.
1. The term oath shall include an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the truth of that which is stated.
2. A person who shall state any matter under oath shall be deemed to swear thereto.
As a nation we are used to seeing “In God We Trust” on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme “truth equals freedom.” and we have heard “Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free.” Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God!
I don't think that God chose us as his people, it's that we chose God. And it will mean and always will mean, so long as we remain a nation, that we Americans have taken God as a foundation for our political philosophy and for our nationalism. And that's why the last four words in the prescribed Oath of Offices says, “so help me God”!
So what can we do? Our goal is to bring our national Government back to the Authors intent. A true Republic form of Constitutional Government. This can only be done with the help of concerned citizens. We must stand together in numbers, then and only then will the national Government listen to what we have to say. “United we Stand, Divided we Fall”.
Public Servants elected to Congress must be held accountable for their actions while in office.
A true American God fearing patriot
Gary W, De Capua / President of the C.R.T.F. / N.N.
Does No mean No?
SEVER ABILITY
Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary
adj. Capable of being severed or separated; separable into legally distinct rights or obligations, as a contract. --sev”er?a?bil“i?ty n.
INFRINGE
(a) --tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete. To defeat; invalidate. --intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: to neglect to obey; as to infringe a law; an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. [Latin ºnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see IN-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- below.] --in?fring“er n.
NO
(b) adv. 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong. 2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more. 3. Not: whether or no. --no n., pl. noes (n½z). 1. A negative response; a denial or refusal: The proposal produced only noes. 2. A negative vote or voter. [Middle English, from Old English n³ : ne, not; see ne below + ³, ever; see aiw- below.] no2 (n½) adj. 1. Not any; not one; not a: No cookies are left. 2. Not at all; not close to being: He is no child. 3. Hardly any: got there in no time flat.
NOT
(c)adv. In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.
SHALL
aux.v. past tense should (sh‹d). 1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show: a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow. b. Something, such as an order, a promise, a requirement, or an obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison. c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it. d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come. 2. Archaic. a. To be able to. b. To have to; must.
Severability
Nevada's Law...NRS 0.020
0.025 Use of “may,” “must,” “shall” is entitled”; explanation of flush lines.
1. Except as otherwise expressly provided in a particular statue or required by the context:
(b) “May not” or “no” abridges or removes a right, privilege or power.
(d) “shall” imposes a duty to act.
(e) “shall not” imposes a prohibition against acting.
Those who are bound by Oath of office with limited delegation of authority must obey and protect it; The Constitution for the united States of America.
A judge has no authority to act until he has taken the oath of office; until he takes the required oath his acts are a nullity, Mancus says, referring to French v. Texas (1978) 572 S.W.2d 934, 939. In that case, a search warrant issued by a judge who had not taken the required oath of office was void and evidence seized under the warrant was inadmissible. Mancus says that Brown v. State (1951) 238 S.W.2d 787, 33, the court held a judge is without authority to act until he takes the oath required by the Constitution.
Why then, does our Government undermine the framers of the Constitution, and those men who fought and lost their lives to protect this great document and country against socialistic tyrants. When Government will not uphold their Oath of office, then they wear the same cloth as those tyrants.. Our Constitution does not give our Government the authority to undermine or rewrite the Constitution for the united States of America, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, is to guarantee our protection from capricious, rapacious, incompetent, and uncaring government.
Learn to defend your RIGHTS
This is why we need to make the Oath of Office a relevant issue
Please sign the PETITION
Repeal the GUN BAN
Public Officers, Beware
Public Officers, Beware
New York State Bar Journal
March/April 1997
See below for footnotes
Public Officers, Beware! No Excuses Accepted
By Carolyn H. Mann
Vetere v. Ponce, (1) emanating from the jurisdiction of the Town/Village of Harrison, has recently cast significant public opinion on § 30, Public Officers Law. (2) Although surrounded by political mischief, the case ultimately concerns the perceived right of a duly elected public official to retain his elected post, even though not in strict compliance with a qualifying section of Public Officers Law. The New York Law Journal
(3) has headlined its piece on this case (and its most curious sequence of political events) with the words, "Technical Omission Costs Official His Post." We question here whether noncompliance with this statute is properly characterized as a "technical" omission. We submit that the failure to timely file an oath of office is an important and justifiable disqualification for holding public office. Those who are hurt by the consequences of failure to strictly comply, must resignedly accept their fate because, as we intend to show, the purpose of the statute is to secure a trust rather than to punish the careless.
No Exceptions!
Briefly, § 30(1)(h) obligates a public official, whether elected or appointed, to file an oath of office, within 30 days of the commencement or notification of his term. The New York Courts have heard several cases pleading relief from a direct reading of this section, yet all pleas have been to no avail. In each and every case, the courts have read the clear and undisputed language of the statute finding no latitude to permit any exceptions. This piece brings to light the cases of the various officeholders whose positions were properly declared vacant by operation of law for noncompliance with the mandate to timely file an oath of office. We will probe why this law, with its seemingly harsh results, is set so firmly into New York Law and whether such law and its consequences should continue undisturbed.
Let us first examine the pleas of the various petitioners asking that their particular set of circumstances be judged worthy of exception when the statute clearly leaves room for none.
In 1913, in People v. Keator, (4) the relator filed his oath 17 days after commencement of his duties and in spite of the fact that the relator received the highest number of votes, the Board passed a resolution reciting the existence of a vacancy and properly proceeded to fill the vacancy by appointing another individual. The relator pleaded relief from the Board's action appointing someone other than himself, the duly elected official. The Court concluded:
Taking the constitutional oath of office being a condition precedent to relator being entitled to enter upon the duties of the office,and hence to his right to maintain an action to oust defendant and to recover possession of the office, we conclude that the relator is not entitled tosucceed in this action... It would be unfortunate, if the refusal or neglectof a person elected to such office to qualify, as required by the Constitution of the state, could deprive a town of such an officer, as the position is one of importance, and particularly so in certain contingencies.
No exceptions!
In the Matter of Comins v. County of Delaware, (5) a public officer entered upon his duties and performed them for some time only to find his position declared vacant. He pleaded before the court that his removal must be annulled for surely his service for such an extended period surely conferred rights of legitimacy to his claim to office. The court disagreed, repeated the clear words of § 30 and continued:
The fact that the Board did not earlier move to dismiss petitioner, does not, in our view,constitute an appointment of petitioner to his position. When a person appointed to office fails totimely file his oath of office, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary, the office is automatically vacant and may be filled by the proper appointive power. Consequently,... no hearing on charges was required in order to dismiss him from office.
No exceptions!
Perhaps the circumstances set forth in McDonough v. Murphy (6) would lead one to expect the court to annul the declaration of a vacancy. Here, two appointed members of the College Board entered upon their official duties and subsequently were officially notified of the appointments. Both filed the oath within 30 days of that official notification, but the Court allowed the vacancy to stand, stating:
. . . when by one's own actions it is clear that a person knows
of his appointment, he should not be allowed to wait indefinitely
before filing an oath of office. This interpretation is mandated
by the necessity to file an oath of office, which is intended to
be part of the requirements making an officer fully qualified to
carry out the duties of his office. . . Thus, once plaintiffs
have taken actions as official members of the board, as has been
done here, they cannot be heard to claim that they had no notice
of their appointments, for without a doubt the contrary is true.
[Emphasis added.]
No exceptions!
Neither is ignorance of the law an excuse for noncompliance with the requirement for a timely
filing, as the Court declared in Boisvert v. County of Ontario, (7) where petitioner pleaded he
was unaware of § 30 Public Officers Law. The court ruled:
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statute is personal to
plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and the office became vacant
by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or not the defendants knew or
were chargeable with notice that plaintiff had failed to file his oath, and
they are not required to make any declaration or give any notice. On his
default in filing his official oath "the appointment was vitiated and the
office * * * became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex rel.
Walton v. Hicks, infra].
No exceptions!
That the statute leads to an unambiguous reading is probably nowhere better stated than in
Walton v. Hicks, (8) where the Court ruled:
This statute is emphatic and unequivocal. It does not seem
possible that it can be misunderstood. In case a person appointed to office
neglects to file his official oath within 15 [now 30] days after notice of
appointment or within 15 [now 30] days after the commencement of the term of
office, the office becomes vacant ipso facto. That is all there is to it. No
judicial procedure is necessary; no notice is necessary; nothing is
necessary. The office is vacant, as much so as though the appointee were dead;
there is no incumbent, and the vacancy may be filled by the proper appointive
power. Certainly, no further explanations of § 30 were necessary. Yet,
in 1990 in response to a request, the State Board of Equalization and
Assessment (9) clarified the "emphatic and unequivocal" words of the statute:
Both the Attorney General (1976, Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 336) and the State Comptroller (10 Op. State Compt. 332) have issued opinions that the failure of a public officer to file an oath is not correctable, because the statute specifically creates the vacancy without providing a remedy. The provisions of Public Officers Law § 30 creates a vacancy which the appointing authority (e.g., town board, county executive, county legislature) may fill at any time (Public Officers Law, § 38).
The appointive assessor or county director who fails to file the oath of office within 30 days is in the same position as any de facto officer; his or her actions are valid, but employment is subject to immediate termination (Williamson v. Fermaille, 31 A.D. 438, 298 N.Y.S. 2d 557 (4th Dept. 1969), aff'd 26 N.Y. 2d 731, 257 N.E. 2d 285, 309 N.Y.S. 2d 35 (1970); Vescio v. City Manager, City of Yonkers, 69 Misc. 2d 68, 389 N.Y.S. 2d 357 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1972), aff'd 41 A.D. 2d 833, 342 N.Y.S. 2d 376 (2d Dept. 1973); 1979, Op. Atty. Gen. 198). Although the failure to file the oath cannot be remedied, the Attorney General has concluded that
there is no bar to the appointment of the same individual to the same office (1978, Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 833). Presumably, such reappointed official would be sure to timely file the oath the second time.
It is important to note that nowhere in the opinion is any mention or reference made to any exceptions to strict compliance with § 30; clearly the legislature intended none.
The administrative explanation of § 30 has been exhaustive and the reiteration of the statute's words frequent. Nevertheless, additional cases managed to find their way into New York courtrooms. In Lombino v. Town Board of the Town of Rye (10) petitioner claimed compliance with § 30 pleading his filing was only one day late. The Court was unimpressed and the Appellate Division stated:
The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is a factual issue of whether the plaintiff filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991. However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, even if he filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991, the filing was still untimely. Public Officers Law § 30 provides that an appointive office shall become vacant for failure to file an official oath "within thirty days after [the] [sic] appointment,or within thirty days after the commencement of such term." Here, the plaintiff was notified of his appointment as Assessor in November 1990, and began working on December 3, 1990. Thus, even if he filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991, the filing was more than 30 days after the notification and commencement of his term. Thus, the Town Board properlydeclared the Office of Assessor vacant.
No exceptions!
Proper Judicial Role: Declaring What the Law is, Not What it Should Be In the most recent case, Vetere v. Ponce, supra, the case which catapulted § 30 onto a red-hot front burner, petitioner sought to be excused from strict compliance with the statute by arguing first, that petitioner was not notified by the Town/Village Clerk to timely file, as required by Law, (11)claiming, in effect, ignorance of a legal duty and second, that petitioner was justifiably distracted from his duty because of the concurrent illness and death of his spouse.
Politics takes center stage here. As set forth in the decision, the Town/Village Clerk of Harrison arranged to have all the Republican elected officials report to Town Hall to sign and file the official oaths. Curiously, however, no one reminded or told petitioner, the sole Democrat on the Board, to be in attendance. On February 16, seventeen days after the expiration of the 30-day period, the Town Clerk issued a Certificate of Vacancy and declared Mr. Vetere's position vacant because of the failure to timely file his oath. The Board then proceeded, as is its right under law, to appoint another (Republican) to fill the vacancy. This action caused great public outcry, however, urging the appointee to resign. Mr. Vetere was promptly thereafter appointed to fill his own vacancy until the next annual election, at which time he would have to run to
fulfill the balance of his term.
Mr. Vetere sought to be reinstated and reclaim his original position and term and pleaded with the Court to be excused from strict compliance with § 30 due to these particular circumstances. The Court, however, found itself compelled by a clear reading of the statute and appropriate case law to find petitioner's elected position vacant indeed, stating:
Notwithstanding equitable considerations and respondent's consent to
reinstatement, the court can only direct reinstatement in the event it finds petitioner
was improperly removed as a matter of law. Whether respondents acted unfairly or
took advantage of petitioner during a period of personal crisis, therefore, is
irrelevant. If this result is harsh, as it is in this case, the remedy lies with the
Legislature.... In this case, since petitioner did not file within 30 days of
commencement of his term, the office became vacant on Feb. 1, 1996.... The
Town Board and Village Trustees were entitled, in turn, to declare a vacancy and to
fill it. (12)
The situation presented in Vetere is illustrative of the problems faced when considering how to avoid equity considerations, and is instructive. Both the Election Law and the Village Law seek to minimize potentially harsh results imposed by § 30 by requiring the Village Clerk to notify officials of the § 30 mandate. The difficulty here lies with enforcement, however. If meeting one's official duty is paramount, enforcement of a law requiring a clerk to notify others of their duty might result in the removal of said clerk for onperformance or nonfeasance. This produces a harsh result in itself, and neither does it eliminate, ameliorate or excuse the duty of the official to timely file. There are simply too many possible equity considerations to statutorily exempt some and not others. No excuses, therefore, can be deemed worthy as exceptions.
Finally, Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella, who delivered the opinion in Vetere, made a truly correct observation. If § 30 can produce a popularly perceived harsh result by not permitting any exceptions to its mandate, the remedy lies not with the Court but with the Legislature. Members of the New York Bar must agree, for it is surely the proper role of the judiciary to declare what the law is, and not what it ought to be.
Since no exceptions can be accepted by the courts to relieve the demands of the "emphatic and unequivocal" language of the statute, (13) Public Officer, Beware! No excuses under New York
Law can remedy your unenviable situation.
Noncompliance is Not a "Technical Omission"
Is the law acceptable? If not, what ought it to be? Is the law too harsh in its result by not permitting exceptions to the 30-day limit for filing the qualifying oath? We know that the limit was already extended from 15 to 30 days. Should the limit be two months? Is a limit necessary at all? Why should the office become vacant by operation of law "so much so as though the appointee were dead"? (14) What is all this fuss about an oath of office not being timely filed? Is it merely a "technical" bugaboo that should be significantly eased? Or, is the demand for strict compliance rational and wise? This author believes the latter.
The New York Legislature apparently believes the taking of the oath of office to be a critical qualification for those in public office accepting the public trust. An oath, we are all aware, is a solemn promise the taking of which is described as "burdening the conscience" where something is present to distinguish between an oath and a bare assertion. (15)
An oath, and its required accompanying and distinguishing act, is what can hopefully establish trust between people. Through this device in a public setting, the people are offered some assurance that the words and actions of public officers are possibly being carefully guided by something other than the official's own set of self serving principles. The swearing-in ceremony is visual and psychologically binding; the filing is written and legally binding. Is there another act which could as simply convey a solemn promise to behave with a full measure of integrity? How else might the public accept the offer of honest public service if not with a solemn, believable offer being made, by way of oath, to create a contract with all the rights and responsibilities we assume are contained in it?
The public must be offered something which fosters confidence in the official's moral responsibility. The official's conscience must be seen to be sufficiently burdened by something to help assure that the desired devotion to the public's trust might reach broadly into the official's public relations and daily decision-making. It is this promise, this oath of office, which helps to hold a civil society together.
Certainly, it is an easy task to file an oath of office within 30 days of the commencement or notification of one's term, and no one in public administration should be statutorily charged with informing another official of his or her duties. This is more properly the job of the official and his legal counsel. The purpose of the requirement reflects wise reasoning and speaks to the act being most critical for the health of the compact among the governed and the governors and, therefore, can permit
no exception.
The "emphatic and unequivocal" language of § 30, Public Officers Law represents one of the important links in the web of our representative democracy and is on the far other side of a mere "technical" nuisance. To reiterate, Public Officer, Beware! The law as it is presently set forth is there to protect, not to punish. No excuses will save a public term of office without taking and timely filing a solemn promise to the people served.
1 New York Law Journal, April 23, 1996, p. 29, col. 6.
2 Section 30, entitled Creation of vacancies, provides, in part:
1. Every office shall be vacant upon the happening of one of the following events before the
expiration of the term thereof:...
h. His refusal or neglect to file his official oath or undertaking, if one is required, before or
within thirty days after the commencement of the term of office for which he is chosen, if an
elective office, or if an appointive office, within thirty days after notice of his appointment or
within thirty days after the commencement of such term...
Personnel on Active Duty with the Armed Forces have a 90 day limit imposed for filing, after
which time a vacancy may be declared by operation of law.
3 Cerisse Anderson, "Technical Omission Costs Official His Post," New York
Law Journal, April 22, 1996, p. 1.
4 People v. Keator, 166 App. Div. 368, 154 N.Y.S. 1007.
5 66 A.D. 2d 966, 412 N.Y.S. 2d 428.
6 92 A.D. 2d 1022, 461 N.Y.S. 2d 439.
7 89 Misc. 2d 183, 391 N.Y.S. 2d 49, aff'd 57 A.D. 2d 1051, 395 N.Y.S. 2d 617.
8 173 App. Div. 338, 158 N.Y.S. 757, aff'd 221 N.Y. 503, 116 N.E. 1069.
9 Opinion, November 19, 1990.
10 1994; 206 A.D. 2d 462, 614 N.Y.S. 2d 564, leave to appeal denied 84 N.Y.
2d 807, 621 N.Y.S. 2d 516, 645 N.E. 2d 1216.
11 Section15-128 Election Law: "The clerk of the village shall, within three days after the
election of a village officer, notify each person elected of his election, and of the date thereof,
and that, in order to qualify: he is required to file his oath of office... and that upon his
failure so to do he will be deemed to have declined the office."
12 The Court, citing the Lombino case and others, observed that the failure to file constitutes an
automatic vacancy and is not subject to a cure nunc pro tunc by a belated filing.
13 Walton v. Hicks, supra.
14 Walton v. Hicks, supra.
15 O'Reilly v. People of the State of New York, 86 N.Y. 154, 1881. Judge
Finch of the Court of
Appeals further stated:
Some form of an oath has always been required, for the double reason that
only by some unequivocal form could the sworn be distinguished from the unsworn
averment, and the sanctions of religion add their solemn and binding force to the act.
(Pandects, xii, 2; 3 Coke's Inst. 165; 1 Phil. on
Ev. 15; 1 Starkie on Ev. 23; Lord HARDWICKE, in Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns, 21; Tyler
on Oaths, 15; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., §§ 328, 371; 1 Alison's
Crim. Law, 474; 3 Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, § 2205; 2 Arch. Crim. Pl., 1723.)... [T]hese
sanctions have grown elastic, and gradually accommodated themselves to differences of creed,
and varieties of belief, so that, as the Christian is sworn upon the Gospels, and invokes the
Divine help to the
truth of his testimony, the Jew also may be sworn upon the Pentateuch, the Quaker solemnly
affirm without invoking the anger or aid of Deity, and the Gentoo kneel before his Brahmin
priest with peculiar ceremonies... The changes of form incident to the growth of nations and of
commerce have been serious, but have not dispensed with a form entirely. . . A wide scope, a
large liberty, is thus given to the form of the oath, but some form remains essential. Something
must be present to distinguish between the oath and the bare assertion. An act must be done, and
clothed in such form as to characterize and evidence it. . .
* Carolyn H. Mann was admitted to the NYS Bar in 1994, and is partner with Mann & Mann of
Port Chester. She holds a BA in Art History and went on to NYU and received a Master of
Urban Planning degree.
Return to State Bar Journal Index
Return to the NYSBA Home Page ......
Subject: Fw: OATHS-Schoharie County
THE NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE
Box 408Chestertown, NY 12817 June 20, 2003
E. David Hallock
Schoharie County Clerk
PO Box 549 Schoharie, NY 12157
RE: FOIL REQUEST Dear Mr. Hallock:
The letter of June 19, 2003 from Karen Miller, clerk of the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors has confirmed and certified that none of the town and village court justices in the entire county of Schoharie have filed their oaths of office AND undertakings in the county clerk’s office as required by the NYS Constitution and Uniform Justice Court Act 104.
Further, it has been confirmed and certified by Ms. Miller that neither has George Bartlett III, county/surrogate and family court judge of Schoharie County, filed his undertaking in the county clerk’s office as required by Judiciary Law 184.
Further, it has been confirmed and certified by Ms. Muller that Sheriff John S. Bates Jr. has not filed an undertaking in the office of county clerk as required by law.
Therefore, I regretfully inform you that immediate vacancies exist in every town and village court in your county, in the office of sheriff and in the office of the county/surrogate and family court judge, ipso facto, for their failure to comply with the provisions of the Consolidated Laws of New York and the NYS Constitution.
I further must inform you that if your office and the offices of the town and village clerks throughout the county do not comply with the law in addressing the existing vacancies, legal action to compel compliance will be coming forthwith.
Public Officers Law 30(1)(h) prescribes that every “office SHALL (mandatory) be vacant upon the refusal or neglect of a public officer to file his official oath or undertaking before or within 30 days of the commencement of the term of office for which he is chosen”. The applicable statutes in addition to Article XIII, Section 1 of the NYS Constitution are POL 10-13, 30(1)(h); Executive Law 63, UJCA104, County Law 400-403, Town Law 25 and 30.
Tardy, belated filings are not retroactively binding, the courts have consistently held, i.e. Vetere v. Ponce (1996) Westchester County Supreme Court. The courts have also held that the failure of the county clerk to fail to give notice to the town or village justice of his failure to file his official oath and undertaking does not excuse the town or village justice for not having done so.
If any official shall neglect within the time required by law to take and file an official oath, or execute and file an official undertaking, the officer with whom or in whose office such oath and undertaking is required to be filed SHALL forthwith give notice of such neglect of an elective officer to the official board or body authorized to fill a vacancy in such office. The town clerk under Town Law 30 must give notice of the vacancy and place it on the ballot for the next election.
The Schoharie County sheriff has no legal authority to act or collect his personal compensation, and the county court, town and village courts are effectively shut down immediately until this matter is addressed and vacancies filled. No hearing or judicial proceeding is necessary to declare the ipso facto vacancies nor no notice but by this letter you have been legally placed on notice.
Any further action by these individuals will be without lawful authority and will subject both the county and the individual towns and villages in the county with serious legal liability and subject them to a class action lawsuit.
The office of sheriff is immediately vacant and has been since Jan. 1, 2002. It is required that you as county clerk immediately fulfill your duties as per POL 13 and County law 400(6) and give notice to the governor of the vacancy due to Bates having failed to qualify for office by failing to file his undertaking. POL 11, 30(1)(h), County Law 403 and Executive Law 63 as well as the NYS Constitution mandate the vacancy and that you so notify the governor of the vacancy.
I further formally advise that as per UJCA 104, POL 10, 30(1)(h), County Law 400-403, that a vacancy exists in each and every judicial office in the county.
In regard to the sheriff, statutory law is very specific that “until the sheriff shall execute and file the required undertaking he shall not perform any duties of the office nor be entitled to any compensation”.
The county had no legal authority to compensate Bates as sheriff since Jan. 1, 2002, and all monies collected must be repaid to the taxpayers. He is legally an usurper in office acting in absence of color of law. POL 13 and 30(h) requires the county clerk to forthwith give notice of the sheriff’s failure to file the undertaking and resulting vacancy of office to the governor.
County Law 400(5) mandates that upon filing in the office of the county clerk a certificate of election or appointment of any officer, together with the oath of office and official undertaking prescribed by law, the county clerk shall execute and deliver to such office a certificate saying he has qualified and is entitled to assume the duties of his office. Bates did not qualify for office and could and cannot assume the duties of sheriff nor can he be compensated.
By usurping the office even with the knowledge that no undertaking had been filed, he is not a de facto officer and therefore none of his acts while usurping in the office are legal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Due to the alleged town and village justices, county court judge and sheriff having failed to comply with the Constitution, the law and having vacated their offices ipso facto, each town and village in the county as well as the county itself is subject to a class action suit from individuals having been illegally fined, illegally incarcerated and illegally arrested by the sheriff and alleged justices/judge.
In effect, the criminal justice system of Schoharie County is shut down due to its officers having failed to comply with the law. Should you have any questions relating to this matter, I would suggest you contact Kevin Crawford and counsel Jaros of the NYS Association of Towns.
I would ask that you comply with the law.
Very truly yours,
June Maxam
CC: Karen Miller, Clerkbcc
New York State Bar Journal
March/April 1997
See below for footnotes
Public Officers, Beware! No Excuses Accepted
By Carolyn H. Mann
Vetere v. Ponce, (1) emanating from the jurisdiction of the Town/Village of Harrison, has recently cast significant public opinion on § 30, Public Officers Law. (2) Although surrounded by political mischief, the case ultimately concerns the perceived right of a duly elected public official to retain his elected post, even though not in strict compliance with a qualifying section of Public Officers Law. The New York Law Journal
(3) has headlined its piece on this case (and its most curious sequence of political events) with the words, "Technical Omission Costs Official His Post." We question here whether noncompliance with this statute is properly characterized as a "technical" omission. We submit that the failure to timely file an oath of office is an important and justifiable disqualification for holding public office. Those who are hurt by the consequences of failure to strictly comply, must resignedly accept their fate because, as we intend to show, the purpose of the statute is to secure a trust rather than to punish the careless.
No Exceptions!
Briefly, § 30(1)(h) obligates a public official, whether elected or appointed, to file an oath of office, within 30 days of the commencement or notification of his term. The New York Courts have heard several cases pleading relief from a direct reading of this section, yet all pleas have been to no avail. In each and every case, the courts have read the clear and undisputed language of the statute finding no latitude to permit any exceptions. This piece brings to light the cases of the various officeholders whose positions were properly declared vacant by operation of law for noncompliance with the mandate to timely file an oath of office. We will probe why this law, with its seemingly harsh results, is set so firmly into New York Law and whether such law and its consequences should continue undisturbed.
Let us first examine the pleas of the various petitioners asking that their particular set of circumstances be judged worthy of exception when the statute clearly leaves room for none.
In 1913, in People v. Keator, (4) the relator filed his oath 17 days after commencement of his duties and in spite of the fact that the relator received the highest number of votes, the Board passed a resolution reciting the existence of a vacancy and properly proceeded to fill the vacancy by appointing another individual. The relator pleaded relief from the Board's action appointing someone other than himself, the duly elected official. The Court concluded:
Taking the constitutional oath of office being a condition precedent to relator being entitled to enter upon the duties of the office,and hence to his right to maintain an action to oust defendant and to recover possession of the office, we conclude that the relator is not entitled tosucceed in this action... It would be unfortunate, if the refusal or neglectof a person elected to such office to qualify, as required by the Constitution of the state, could deprive a town of such an officer, as the position is one of importance, and particularly so in certain contingencies.
No exceptions!
In the Matter of Comins v. County of Delaware, (5) a public officer entered upon his duties and performed them for some time only to find his position declared vacant. He pleaded before the court that his removal must be annulled for surely his service for such an extended period surely conferred rights of legitimacy to his claim to office. The court disagreed, repeated the clear words of § 30 and continued:
The fact that the Board did not earlier move to dismiss petitioner, does not, in our view,constitute an appointment of petitioner to his position. When a person appointed to office fails totimely file his oath of office, neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary, the office is automatically vacant and may be filled by the proper appointive power. Consequently,... no hearing on charges was required in order to dismiss him from office.
No exceptions!
Perhaps the circumstances set forth in McDonough v. Murphy (6) would lead one to expect the court to annul the declaration of a vacancy. Here, two appointed members of the College Board entered upon their official duties and subsequently were officially notified of the appointments. Both filed the oath within 30 days of that official notification, but the Court allowed the vacancy to stand, stating:
. . . when by one's own actions it is clear that a person knows
of his appointment, he should not be allowed to wait indefinitely
before filing an oath of office. This interpretation is mandated
by the necessity to file an oath of office, which is intended to
be part of the requirements making an officer fully qualified to
carry out the duties of his office. . . Thus, once plaintiffs
have taken actions as official members of the board, as has been
done here, they cannot be heard to claim that they had no notice
of their appointments, for without a doubt the contrary is true.
[Emphasis added.]
No exceptions!
Neither is ignorance of the law an excuse for noncompliance with the requirement for a timely
filing, as the Court declared in Boisvert v. County of Ontario, (7) where petitioner pleaded he
was unaware of § 30 Public Officers Law. The court ruled:
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statute is personal to
plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and the office became vacant
by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or not the defendants knew or
were chargeable with notice that plaintiff had failed to file his oath, and
they are not required to make any declaration or give any notice. On his
default in filing his official oath "the appointment was vitiated and the
office * * * became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex rel.
Walton v. Hicks, infra].
No exceptions!
That the statute leads to an unambiguous reading is probably nowhere better stated than in
Walton v. Hicks, (8) where the Court ruled:
This statute is emphatic and unequivocal. It does not seem
possible that it can be misunderstood. In case a person appointed to office
neglects to file his official oath within 15 [now 30] days after notice of
appointment or within 15 [now 30] days after the commencement of the term of
office, the office becomes vacant ipso facto. That is all there is to it. No
judicial procedure is necessary; no notice is necessary; nothing is
necessary. The office is vacant, as much so as though the appointee were dead;
there is no incumbent, and the vacancy may be filled by the proper appointive
power. Certainly, no further explanations of § 30 were necessary. Yet,
in 1990 in response to a request, the State Board of Equalization and
Assessment (9) clarified the "emphatic and unequivocal" words of the statute:
Both the Attorney General (1976, Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 336) and the State Comptroller (10 Op. State Compt. 332) have issued opinions that the failure of a public officer to file an oath is not correctable, because the statute specifically creates the vacancy without providing a remedy. The provisions of Public Officers Law § 30 creates a vacancy which the appointing authority (e.g., town board, county executive, county legislature) may fill at any time (Public Officers Law, § 38).
The appointive assessor or county director who fails to file the oath of office within 30 days is in the same position as any de facto officer; his or her actions are valid, but employment is subject to immediate termination (Williamson v. Fermaille, 31 A.D. 438, 298 N.Y.S. 2d 557 (4th Dept. 1969), aff'd 26 N.Y. 2d 731, 257 N.E. 2d 285, 309 N.Y.S. 2d 35 (1970); Vescio v. City Manager, City of Yonkers, 69 Misc. 2d 68, 389 N.Y.S. 2d 357 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 1972), aff'd 41 A.D. 2d 833, 342 N.Y.S. 2d 376 (2d Dept. 1973); 1979, Op. Atty. Gen. 198). Although the failure to file the oath cannot be remedied, the Attorney General has concluded that
there is no bar to the appointment of the same individual to the same office (1978, Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 833). Presumably, such reappointed official would be sure to timely file the oath the second time.
It is important to note that nowhere in the opinion is any mention or reference made to any exceptions to strict compliance with § 30; clearly the legislature intended none.
The administrative explanation of § 30 has been exhaustive and the reiteration of the statute's words frequent. Nevertheless, additional cases managed to find their way into New York courtrooms. In Lombino v. Town Board of the Town of Rye (10) petitioner claimed compliance with § 30 pleading his filing was only one day late. The Court was unimpressed and the Appellate Division stated:
The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is a factual issue of whether the plaintiff filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991. However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, even if he filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991, the filing was still untimely. Public Officers Law § 30 provides that an appointive office shall become vacant for failure to file an official oath "within thirty days after [the] [sic] appointment,or within thirty days after the commencement of such term." Here, the plaintiff was notified of his appointment as Assessor in November 1990, and began working on December 3, 1990. Thus, even if he filed his oath of office on January 3, 1991, the filing was more than 30 days after the notification and commencement of his term. Thus, the Town Board properlydeclared the Office of Assessor vacant.
No exceptions!
Proper Judicial Role: Declaring What the Law is, Not What it Should Be In the most recent case, Vetere v. Ponce, supra, the case which catapulted § 30 onto a red-hot front burner, petitioner sought to be excused from strict compliance with the statute by arguing first, that petitioner was not notified by the Town/Village Clerk to timely file, as required by Law, (11)claiming, in effect, ignorance of a legal duty and second, that petitioner was justifiably distracted from his duty because of the concurrent illness and death of his spouse.
Politics takes center stage here. As set forth in the decision, the Town/Village Clerk of Harrison arranged to have all the Republican elected officials report to Town Hall to sign and file the official oaths. Curiously, however, no one reminded or told petitioner, the sole Democrat on the Board, to be in attendance. On February 16, seventeen days after the expiration of the 30-day period, the Town Clerk issued a Certificate of Vacancy and declared Mr. Vetere's position vacant because of the failure to timely file his oath. The Board then proceeded, as is its right under law, to appoint another (Republican) to fill the vacancy. This action caused great public outcry, however, urging the appointee to resign. Mr. Vetere was promptly thereafter appointed to fill his own vacancy until the next annual election, at which time he would have to run to
fulfill the balance of his term.
Mr. Vetere sought to be reinstated and reclaim his original position and term and pleaded with the Court to be excused from strict compliance with § 30 due to these particular circumstances. The Court, however, found itself compelled by a clear reading of the statute and appropriate case law to find petitioner's elected position vacant indeed, stating:
Notwithstanding equitable considerations and respondent's consent to
reinstatement, the court can only direct reinstatement in the event it finds petitioner
was improperly removed as a matter of law. Whether respondents acted unfairly or
took advantage of petitioner during a period of personal crisis, therefore, is
irrelevant. If this result is harsh, as it is in this case, the remedy lies with the
Legislature.... In this case, since petitioner did not file within 30 days of
commencement of his term, the office became vacant on Feb. 1, 1996.... The
Town Board and Village Trustees were entitled, in turn, to declare a vacancy and to
fill it. (12)
The situation presented in Vetere is illustrative of the problems faced when considering how to avoid equity considerations, and is instructive. Both the Election Law and the Village Law seek to minimize potentially harsh results imposed by § 30 by requiring the Village Clerk to notify officials of the § 30 mandate. The difficulty here lies with enforcement, however. If meeting one's official duty is paramount, enforcement of a law requiring a clerk to notify others of their duty might result in the removal of said clerk for onperformance or nonfeasance. This produces a harsh result in itself, and neither does it eliminate, ameliorate or excuse the duty of the official to timely file. There are simply too many possible equity considerations to statutorily exempt some and not others. No excuses, therefore, can be deemed worthy as exceptions.
Finally, Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella, who delivered the opinion in Vetere, made a truly correct observation. If § 30 can produce a popularly perceived harsh result by not permitting any exceptions to its mandate, the remedy lies not with the Court but with the Legislature. Members of the New York Bar must agree, for it is surely the proper role of the judiciary to declare what the law is, and not what it ought to be.
Since no exceptions can be accepted by the courts to relieve the demands of the "emphatic and unequivocal" language of the statute, (13) Public Officer, Beware! No excuses under New York
Law can remedy your unenviable situation.
Noncompliance is Not a "Technical Omission"
Is the law acceptable? If not, what ought it to be? Is the law too harsh in its result by not permitting exceptions to the 30-day limit for filing the qualifying oath? We know that the limit was already extended from 15 to 30 days. Should the limit be two months? Is a limit necessary at all? Why should the office become vacant by operation of law "so much so as though the appointee were dead"? (14) What is all this fuss about an oath of office not being timely filed? Is it merely a "technical" bugaboo that should be significantly eased? Or, is the demand for strict compliance rational and wise? This author believes the latter.
The New York Legislature apparently believes the taking of the oath of office to be a critical qualification for those in public office accepting the public trust. An oath, we are all aware, is a solemn promise the taking of which is described as "burdening the conscience" where something is present to distinguish between an oath and a bare assertion. (15)
An oath, and its required accompanying and distinguishing act, is what can hopefully establish trust between people. Through this device in a public setting, the people are offered some assurance that the words and actions of public officers are possibly being carefully guided by something other than the official's own set of self serving principles. The swearing-in ceremony is visual and psychologically binding; the filing is written and legally binding. Is there another act which could as simply convey a solemn promise to behave with a full measure of integrity? How else might the public accept the offer of honest public service if not with a solemn, believable offer being made, by way of oath, to create a contract with all the rights and responsibilities we assume are contained in it?
The public must be offered something which fosters confidence in the official's moral responsibility. The official's conscience must be seen to be sufficiently burdened by something to help assure that the desired devotion to the public's trust might reach broadly into the official's public relations and daily decision-making. It is this promise, this oath of office, which helps to hold a civil society together.
Certainly, it is an easy task to file an oath of office within 30 days of the commencement or notification of one's term, and no one in public administration should be statutorily charged with informing another official of his or her duties. This is more properly the job of the official and his legal counsel. The purpose of the requirement reflects wise reasoning and speaks to the act being most critical for the health of the compact among the governed and the governors and, therefore, can permit
no exception.
The "emphatic and unequivocal" language of § 30, Public Officers Law represents one of the important links in the web of our representative democracy and is on the far other side of a mere "technical" nuisance. To reiterate, Public Officer, Beware! The law as it is presently set forth is there to protect, not to punish. No excuses will save a public term of office without taking and timely filing a solemn promise to the people served.
1 New York Law Journal, April 23, 1996, p. 29, col. 6.
2 Section 30, entitled Creation of vacancies, provides, in part:
1. Every office shall be vacant upon the happening of one of the following events before the
expiration of the term thereof:...
h. His refusal or neglect to file his official oath or undertaking, if one is required, before or
within thirty days after the commencement of the term of office for which he is chosen, if an
elective office, or if an appointive office, within thirty days after notice of his appointment or
within thirty days after the commencement of such term...
Personnel on Active Duty with the Armed Forces have a 90 day limit imposed for filing, after
which time a vacancy may be declared by operation of law.
3 Cerisse Anderson, "Technical Omission Costs Official His Post," New York
Law Journal, April 22, 1996, p. 1.
4 People v. Keator, 166 App. Div. 368, 154 N.Y.S. 1007.
5 66 A.D. 2d 966, 412 N.Y.S. 2d 428.
6 92 A.D. 2d 1022, 461 N.Y.S. 2d 439.
7 89 Misc. 2d 183, 391 N.Y.S. 2d 49, aff'd 57 A.D. 2d 1051, 395 N.Y.S. 2d 617.
8 173 App. Div. 338, 158 N.Y.S. 757, aff'd 221 N.Y. 503, 116 N.E. 1069.
9 Opinion, November 19, 1990.
10 1994; 206 A.D. 2d 462, 614 N.Y.S. 2d 564, leave to appeal denied 84 N.Y.
2d 807, 621 N.Y.S. 2d 516, 645 N.E. 2d 1216.
11 Section15-128 Election Law: "The clerk of the village shall, within three days after the
election of a village officer, notify each person elected of his election, and of the date thereof,
and that, in order to qualify: he is required to file his oath of office... and that upon his
failure so to do he will be deemed to have declined the office."
12 The Court, citing the Lombino case and others, observed that the failure to file constitutes an
automatic vacancy and is not subject to a cure nunc pro tunc by a belated filing.
13 Walton v. Hicks, supra.
14 Walton v. Hicks, supra.
15 O'Reilly v. People of the State of New York, 86 N.Y. 154, 1881. Judge
Finch of the Court of
Appeals further stated:
Some form of an oath has always been required, for the double reason that
only by some unequivocal form could the sworn be distinguished from the unsworn
averment, and the sanctions of religion add their solemn and binding force to the act.
(Pandects, xii, 2; 3 Coke's Inst. 165; 1 Phil. on
Ev. 15; 1 Starkie on Ev. 23; Lord HARDWICKE, in Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns, 21; Tyler
on Oaths, 15; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., §§ 328, 371; 1 Alison's
Crim. Law, 474; 3 Wharton's Am. Crim. Law, § 2205; 2 Arch. Crim. Pl., 1723.)... [T]hese
sanctions have grown elastic, and gradually accommodated themselves to differences of creed,
and varieties of belief, so that, as the Christian is sworn upon the Gospels, and invokes the
Divine help to the
truth of his testimony, the Jew also may be sworn upon the Pentateuch, the Quaker solemnly
affirm without invoking the anger or aid of Deity, and the Gentoo kneel before his Brahmin
priest with peculiar ceremonies... The changes of form incident to the growth of nations and of
commerce have been serious, but have not dispensed with a form entirely. . . A wide scope, a
large liberty, is thus given to the form of the oath, but some form remains essential. Something
must be present to distinguish between the oath and the bare assertion. An act must be done, and
clothed in such form as to characterize and evidence it. . .
* Carolyn H. Mann was admitted to the NYS Bar in 1994, and is partner with Mann & Mann of
Port Chester. She holds a BA in Art History and went on to NYU and received a Master of
Urban Planning degree.
Return to State Bar Journal Index
Return to the NYSBA Home Page ......
Subject: Fw: OATHS-Schoharie County
THE NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE
Box 408Chestertown, NY 12817 June 20, 2003
E. David Hallock
Schoharie County Clerk
PO Box 549 Schoharie, NY 12157
RE: FOIL REQUEST Dear Mr. Hallock:
The letter of June 19, 2003 from Karen Miller, clerk of the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors has confirmed and certified that none of the town and village court justices in the entire county of Schoharie have filed their oaths of office AND undertakings in the county clerk’s office as required by the NYS Constitution and Uniform Justice Court Act 104.
Further, it has been confirmed and certified by Ms. Miller that neither has George Bartlett III, county/surrogate and family court judge of Schoharie County, filed his undertaking in the county clerk’s office as required by Judiciary Law 184.
Further, it has been confirmed and certified by Ms. Muller that Sheriff John S. Bates Jr. has not filed an undertaking in the office of county clerk as required by law.
Therefore, I regretfully inform you that immediate vacancies exist in every town and village court in your county, in the office of sheriff and in the office of the county/surrogate and family court judge, ipso facto, for their failure to comply with the provisions of the Consolidated Laws of New York and the NYS Constitution.
I further must inform you that if your office and the offices of the town and village clerks throughout the county do not comply with the law in addressing the existing vacancies, legal action to compel compliance will be coming forthwith.
Public Officers Law 30(1)(h) prescribes that every “office SHALL (mandatory) be vacant upon the refusal or neglect of a public officer to file his official oath or undertaking before or within 30 days of the commencement of the term of office for which he is chosen”. The applicable statutes in addition to Article XIII, Section 1 of the NYS Constitution are POL 10-13, 30(1)(h); Executive Law 63, UJCA104, County Law 400-403, Town Law 25 and 30.
Tardy, belated filings are not retroactively binding, the courts have consistently held, i.e. Vetere v. Ponce (1996) Westchester County Supreme Court. The courts have also held that the failure of the county clerk to fail to give notice to the town or village justice of his failure to file his official oath and undertaking does not excuse the town or village justice for not having done so.
If any official shall neglect within the time required by law to take and file an official oath, or execute and file an official undertaking, the officer with whom or in whose office such oath and undertaking is required to be filed SHALL forthwith give notice of such neglect of an elective officer to the official board or body authorized to fill a vacancy in such office. The town clerk under Town Law 30 must give notice of the vacancy and place it on the ballot for the next election.
The Schoharie County sheriff has no legal authority to act or collect his personal compensation, and the county court, town and village courts are effectively shut down immediately until this matter is addressed and vacancies filled. No hearing or judicial proceeding is necessary to declare the ipso facto vacancies nor no notice but by this letter you have been legally placed on notice.
Any further action by these individuals will be without lawful authority and will subject both the county and the individual towns and villages in the county with serious legal liability and subject them to a class action lawsuit.
The office of sheriff is immediately vacant and has been since Jan. 1, 2002. It is required that you as county clerk immediately fulfill your duties as per POL 13 and County law 400(6) and give notice to the governor of the vacancy due to Bates having failed to qualify for office by failing to file his undertaking. POL 11, 30(1)(h), County Law 403 and Executive Law 63 as well as the NYS Constitution mandate the vacancy and that you so notify the governor of the vacancy.
I further formally advise that as per UJCA 104, POL 10, 30(1)(h), County Law 400-403, that a vacancy exists in each and every judicial office in the county.
In regard to the sheriff, statutory law is very specific that “until the sheriff shall execute and file the required undertaking he shall not perform any duties of the office nor be entitled to any compensation”.
The county had no legal authority to compensate Bates as sheriff since Jan. 1, 2002, and all monies collected must be repaid to the taxpayers. He is legally an usurper in office acting in absence of color of law. POL 13 and 30(h) requires the county clerk to forthwith give notice of the sheriff’s failure to file the undertaking and resulting vacancy of office to the governor.
County Law 400(5) mandates that upon filing in the office of the county clerk a certificate of election or appointment of any officer, together with the oath of office and official undertaking prescribed by law, the county clerk shall execute and deliver to such office a certificate saying he has qualified and is entitled to assume the duties of his office. Bates did not qualify for office and could and cannot assume the duties of sheriff nor can he be compensated.
By usurping the office even with the knowledge that no undertaking had been filed, he is not a de facto officer and therefore none of his acts while usurping in the office are legal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Due to the alleged town and village justices, county court judge and sheriff having failed to comply with the Constitution, the law and having vacated their offices ipso facto, each town and village in the county as well as the county itself is subject to a class action suit from individuals having been illegally fined, illegally incarcerated and illegally arrested by the sheriff and alleged justices/judge.
In effect, the criminal justice system of Schoharie County is shut down due to its officers having failed to comply with the law. Should you have any questions relating to this matter, I would suggest you contact Kevin Crawford and counsel Jaros of the NYS Association of Towns.
I would ask that you comply with the law.
Very truly yours,
June Maxam
CC: Karen Miller, Clerkbcc
Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack
No Sheriff Left Behind
Yes, that's the plan. Make sure that every sheriff in the country has received a copy of "The County Sheriff: America's Last Hope". We're not going to force them -- er, excuse me... withhold federal money from them -- but we are going to give them an opportunity to read it. With your donations, we can make it happen. When every sheriff understands his duty and functions with the support of those whom he serves, then not only will there be "no sheriff left behind" but we, the people will not be left behind!
You may donate any amount you choose to this cause... all donations are appreciated and will go towards the printing and delivery of a copy of the book to every county sheriff in America. You may specify the state or county where we should send the books. If you do so, please provide us with the addresses where we should send them.
If you purchased books yourself to give to your local sheriff, please send us an email so we can keep track.
April 2009: THERE ARE NO SHERIFFS LEFT BEHIND IN MINNESOTA! Many people have written in telling us that they have given a copy of "The County Sheriff" to their own county sheriff... and that's awesome! Every bit is appreciated, and we can only hope it will make a difference. Now here's something a little extra special: A woman in Minnesota bought a copy of the book for all 87 county Sheriffs in her state, hand-addressed them and mailed them along with an introductory letter. Click here to see her letter. UPDATE: Here are written responses from some of the sheriffs who have received the book: 1 2 3
June 2009: THERE ARE NO SHERIFFS LEFT BEHIND IN Ohio, Montana, Idaho or Arizona!
July 2009: THERE ARE NO SHERIFFS LEFT BEHIND IN Oregon!
September 2009: THERE ARE NO SHERIFFS LEFT BEHIND IN Colorado, Florida, South Dakota, California, Washington, Arkansas, Missouri, Maryland, Massachusetts or Illinois!
March 2010: WE DID IT!!! Thanks to donations from freedom-loving patriots across this great land, we have achieved our goal of NO SHERIFF LEFT BEHIND! We still have a few books left to mail, but we have received enough to pay for every sheriff in this country to have a copy. NOW, THE FOLLOW-THROUGH IS UP TO ALL OF US.
Responses from Colorado: We've received a copy of a reaffirmation of their oath of office from the sheriffs of the state of Colorado. We are proud to share it with you. Page 1 Page 2
Welcome to SheriffMack.com
Hi, I'm Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and long-time crusader for freedom and individual rights. Right now, it is vital that we restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. The greatest threat we face today is not terrorists; it is our own federal government. If America is conquered or ruined it will be from within, not a foreign enemy.
In 1994 I filed a lawsuit challenging the Brady bill to stop the federal government from forcing another unfunded mandate down our throats. I won a decision at the US Supreme Court on the issue of States' rights. This suit catapulted me to national attention, with television appearances on the Donahue Show, Good Morning America, Crossfire, Nightline, CNBC, and SHOWTIME'S the AMERICAN CANDIDATE. I've been on over 500 radio talk shows nationwide, ranging from G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Goyette to Derry Brownfield and Pat Buchannan. I have traveled the country extensively and I've seen first hand the horrible side effects from politicians who have replaced our Constitution with their own political agendas and party platforms.
I lecture and give seminars on constitutional issues relating to gun control, law enforcement, States' rights, the farce, otherwise known as the drug war, and the oath of office. I have also been a consultant for lawyers, and people in general helping them with cases of unlawful arrests and police misconduct. I have stood for "the little guy" against "big brother" government.
On this site you'll find many articles and extracts from books I've written on many subjects related to maintaining our freedom as a people. I am deeply committed to the belief that government should exist to protect the freedoms of the individuals whom it serves. We must return to those principles that our country was founded upon!
The founders of our nation were afraid of one thing more than any other... government having too much power! Remember, they escaped from the tyranny of an oppressive and controlling government when they established this nation. They fought and died for it, and now we are letting these same freedoms they fought for slip away little by little, without a second thought.
Please join me in the fight to regain our rights, while the price to pay is less than death. I am committed to doing all we can peacefully to get our country back.
In order to succeed, we must first make ourselves aware of the problem. We must educate ourselves, and then we can know what action to take. One of the best and easiest solutions is to depend on local officials, especially the sheriff, to stand against federal intervention and federal criminality.
And this is the purpose of my work: I write and speak so that others will become educated and free.
What rights does the constitution actually guarantee?
Why is it important that we not allow our means of self-defense to be taken from us?
What are the dangers of giving government too much power?
What can we do to remain strong as individuals and families, so that we can remain strong as a nation?
How do we win the war on illegal drugs?
What can the sheriff do to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
Please take a few moments to read and think about these things. It really may be a life or death situation!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
CALL TO THE PUBLIC
Call To The Public:
We need all able citizens of Graham County to Picket the Graham County Court House.
Signs held in front of Court House, We will be Picketing the Safford Court House until we reach a remedy in this court.
NO
OATH
NO
BOND
NO
LAWFUL
GOVERNMENT
100%
CONVICTION
RATE
NO
DUE -
PROCESS
NO
REMEDY
IN THIS
COURT
We need all able citizens of Graham County to Picket the Graham County Court House.
Signs held in front of Court House, We will be Picketing the Safford Court House until we reach a remedy in this court.
NO
OATH
NO
BOND
NO
LAWFUL
GOVERNMENT
100%
CONVICTION
RATE
NO
DUE -
PROCESS
NO
REMEDY
IN THIS
COURT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)