Finally! Good News Indeed!
Let’s all say a little pray that this goes through!

FAIR USE!
WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html

Officials, counties sued over oaths
California lawsuit claims many hold office fraudulently
——————————————————————————–
By Julie Foster
? 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Key government officials, including California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, are currently
being served a complaint filed in the United States District Court in Oakland, Calif., claiming
the defendants have no right to act with the authority of law since they did not properly file
their oaths of office. According to the California State Constitution and federal law, late
filing renders the office vacant and requires immediate removal of the elected official.
Greg Willis filed the suit after years of research, during which he uncovered the fact that
California Governor Gray Davis, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and 38 individuals in four
California counties had filed their oaths too late. The legal consequences of late filing are
drastic. Once the office-holder is removed, all actions taken in an official capacity are
considered null and void, any wages or other payments received by the official are to be paid
back in full and the official may be subject to a prison term. Willis’ complaint is simple: “Why
is it that public officials force us to comply with the law, but they see themselves as above
the law?”

In an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview, Willis expressed frustration with a government that
employs such a brazen legal double standard. The lawsuit is a means of fighting back in a system
that he believes has exceeded its boundaries.

“What would happen if you didn’t pay your car registration in time?” asks Willis. “You can’t
drive that car!”

“In my opinion, this is the most important lawsuit ever filed in the history of the great
state of California, because we want to settle once and for all whether or not these public
officials are required to comply with the same laws as the rest of us,” he continued. “We have
deadlines or we don’t have a civilization. We have to have limits.”

Willis’ attorney, Jeff Greenwald, agrees, saying that this case is about the rule
of law. “It may sound technical, it may sound trivial, but it’s not,” he told WorldNetDaily.
“[The defendants] are not going to sit down and take this lightly.”

While Greenwald admits that he does not know what the defendants will do in response to the
case, he does have his theories. Retroactive legislation may be attempted to excuse late or
absent oaths of office. The legislation may take the form of an extended time period for
compliance, or it may simply require all future elected officials to file their oaths with the
secretary of state in the time prescribed by law — 30 days from the issuance of a certificate
of election.

Another escape route for delinquent officials could be the declaration by the federal court
that statutes relating to the filing of an oath of office within 30 days are directional rather
than jurisdictional — meaning that the statutes are merely a recommendation instead of a
mandate.

That tactic has been used frequently by the courts in order to get government entities out of
sticky legal situations. However, such a declaration may be more difficult to come by in this
case, as directional statutes have been declared so only if they do not contain consequences for
lack of action. The failure to file an oath of office in a timely manner clearly contains
ramifications, the first of which is removal from office.

“They’re going to be terrified, because the implications of this are so complex and
far-reaching,” said Greenwald, who has requested a jury trial.

Defendants in the case may see the loss of their jobs and the reversal of their professional
actions, but the real fear is loss of official immunity. Government officials are immune to
lawsuits concerning actions in their official capacities. Should Willis’ lawsuit succeed,
however, the court would deem the 38 individuals named as defendants as never having held
office, and, as such, they would not then be under the cover of immunity.

The lawsuit will be followed by federal quo warranto actions against every defendant now
working for the state of California or Alameda or Contra Costa counties. A quo warranto is a
legal demand to produce proof of credentials — in this case, to provide a certified copy of a
timely-filed oath of office.

Quo warranto actions are “unique in American jurisprudence, as the plaintiff doesn’t have to
prove anything,” said Greg Nichols, a teacher who has traveled up and down the state of
California informing civil rights groups about the oath of office.

“All [the defendant] would have to do is go down to the secretary of state’s office, get a
certified copy of the oath and show it off in the court and be done with it,” he said.

However, a quo warranto action can only be filed with the approval of the attorney general,
a condition that is unique to California, and one that has prevented previous attempts by
Nichols and Willis to bring such actions against officials in the past. This time the writs will
come from the federal level, which allows Willis to circumvent California’s roadblock to the
process.

WorldNetDaily contacted Assistant Attorney General Rodney Lilyquist, head of Lockyer’s opinion
department who had told Willis he could not file a quo warranto action in California, to comment
on the case. Lilyquist told WND that he could not comment without seeing the complaint, but when
WND informed Lilyquist that he is named as a defendant in the case, the assistant attorney
general had more to say.

“He is wrong on that one,” said Lilyquist, incredulously, referring to Willis’ inclusion of
him in the suit. “He doesn’t know where the oaths are supposed to be filed.” Lilyquist has yet
to file even a delinquent oath of office.

Nichols, who has assisted Willis in his research leading up to the suit, said, “Of all the
people I’ve taught to do this, very few have had the guts to do it.” Willis is one of those few.

“I’m doing this primarily for my kids, but also for everybody in the state of
California,” said Willis.

He simply wants to know, “Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of petty little
dictators?”
-30-