THE 111th BROADCAST OF THE T-ROH SHOW!


 

THE BASICS OF A CONTRACT



Claims: https://theunitedstatesofamerica1781.com/dot 

https://www.brighteon.com/channel/trohshow

Get immediate updates by joining: https://generalpostoffice.org/nanp 

https://continentalpublicbank.com

http://governmentoftheunitedstatesofamerica.international

Silver Infusion: http://reignoftheheavenshealingcenter.com/shop/?wpam_id=2

Plasma Energy: https://plasmaenergysolution.com/?wpam_id=33

3 Replies to “THE 111th BROADCAST OF THE T-ROH SHOW!”

  1. Max

    A co-worker of mine years ago had to go to court for 7 charges (Charges were 4 years old) including a DUI. He asked me what he could say to the Judge…so I told him to “Accept his Oath of Office” when they call the NAME of his person. He took my advice and he said that as soon as he said that, he was treated way better than the rest of the crowd. The Judge responded: “What would you like to do?” He responded that he wanted a continuance….so he got his continuance. We later wrote a letter to the prosecutor and then we got all his charges dismissed.

    Acceptance is highly important…however I believe that it is up to the people to accept their oath of office.

    Max, nc

  2. Tracy

    I was just analyzing this very issue from another perspective. The obligation. Case in my state: Prisoner vs AG under The Victims Rights Act. Prisoner was abused by guards and contacted AG to investigate abuse holding her to the statutory duty that says the AG shall investigate reports of abuse by prisoners, and upon finding of said abuse, The AG shall represent prisoner and file charges againts abuser on prisoner’s behalf.

    The AG did nothing, so the prisoner sued up to state supreme court. His claim was that she failed in her fidutiary and statitory obligation citing the use of the word “shall” in the statute, whereby the AG argued that the statute provided for no obligation on her part .

    The supreme court agreed with The AG, because although the obligatory word “shall” was utilized in the statute, the statute provided for no obligatory consequence if the AG failed to do as the statute instructed .Therefore, the court determined that the legislative intent in the statute was a “directive,” and it did not impose an obligation upon the AG .

    The court further provided that if the legislature had intended to impose an obligation, they would have added a subsection to that part providing for a consequence to the AG’s failure to perform.

    It appears we all must look a little closer as to the obligatory nature of the statute they utilize against us . I can tell you, in family law, there is no obligation to the parents to perform anything.

Leave a Reply