Reply – District Courts have original jurisdiction ...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
District Courts have original jurisdiction ...
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude
Since the court, its officers, and the Prosecutor Plaintiff-Counsel are conservators of the peace and an attorney is an “employee of the United States” by virtue of his “bar oath” and an attorney’s first duty is to the Court, then it appears an Attorney has a DUTY owed to the BOTH the Plaintiff AND the Court to take the offer of peace (ie: AFV/RFV, CR(tm), and the Verification of Complaint) to Plaintiff-Counsel of whom is now compelled to answer and provide proof of claim the consideration tender is insufficient AND provide the Thing demanded for payment along with the proof of claim the court constituted is one of COMPETENT jurisdiction AND that the Attorney bringing claim has authority and jurisdiction to bring claim along with all facts and law relied upon; ELSE Plaintiff would agree that PERSON stands acquitted and discharged from any further obligation for all purposes of this obligation for any further collection attempt would amount to Breach of Peace/Contract and it appears if one were to bring the action into a District Court in the nature of a mandamus, under 28 USC 1361, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff, unless of course, this court can provide proof of claim along with all the facts and law relied upon to the contrary.

What this appears to mean is that ANYONE who occupies and office wherein an "oath of office" is to be given by law is compelled to perform in US District Court when the action is brought in the nature of mandamus. Interesting.

What do you all think?

~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.