Why are Governors, Mayors, and District Attorneys above the law regarding criminal negligence, fostering criminal activity, and violating their oath of office? Why are they not removed from office? We cannot wait for new elections to solve the increased criminal activities in our cities throughout the country. Once citizens witness negligence on a continuing basis by elected officials and promote more criminal activity, they need to be removed immediately from office.
“Violation of the oath of office” means an elective public officer’s neglect or knowing failure to perform faith- entirely a duty imposed by law. Violation of the oath of office, including malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance, shall constitute good and sufficient cause for removal from the office of any such officer. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918, provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311, including (1) removal from office and (2) confinement or a fine. The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450, which for enforcement, supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. If the officer was not administered an oath, or the oath was not prescribed by law, they will not be guilty of violating it. Federal Criminal Penalty for Violation of Oath of Office
Federal criminal law is explicit and direct regarding a violation of oath of office by federal officials, including all Congress members. The law requires the removal of the office holder and a prison term or fine for the offender.
Legislators, public employees, and other public servants may face severe consequences for violating public trust. The penalties include censure, removal from office, permanent disqualification from holding any state position, restitution, decades in prison, and fines up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Not all ethics violations are treated equally. Punishments correspond to how bad an instance of misconduct is viewed in the eyes of a state and in consideration of the harm a violation may cause. The most severe consequences are generally reserved for bribery involving large sums or similar intentional violations of ethics or anti-corruption laws. Like most issues in ethics, however, states vary widely on the details.
A leader and, Politician, President whose character is marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Leader of a free People. The U. S. Constitution COMMANDS every Government Official to be BOUND by an Oath of Affirmation: Article 6, Clause 3. Then they are REQUIRED to take the Lawful Oath before taking the seat to which they were elected. Now it is time We, the People, hold them to their Lawful Oath and demand they stand by every word in the Oath/. They Solemnly Swear to Support and Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and Domestic, they take it Obligation Freely without any Mental Reservation or Purpose of EVASION! We MUST MAKE The Oath of Office a relevant ISSUE.
We, as citizens of America, can no longer tolerate or allow public officials to release criminals back into society. The criminal suspect is arrested, booked, and granted release on their “own recognizance,” or “O.R.,” no bail money is paid to the court, and no bond is posted. The suspect is merely released after promising, in writing, to appear in court for all upcoming proceedings. Most courts impose additional conditions on subjects in exchange for releasing them on their recognizance when there is a nexus between the condition and the crime charged.
For example, multiple DUI offenders are often required to immediately surrender their vehicles and begin attending alcohol treatment classes in exchange for their release. Similarly, many states have strict domestic violence laws requiring suspected batterers to enroll immediately in domestic violence education classes. These same suspects are often required to stay a certain number of feet or yards from the alleged victim in the form of a temporary restraining order, or “T.R.O.,” until the case is resolved.
Still other suspects are required to immediately attend anger management classes, surrender their passports, or even agree not to associate with known gang members or convicted felons. As expected, each condition must be related to the circumstances of the case, and the crime charged.
NYC’s ‘no bail’ law rewards criminals and punishes law-abiding citizens.
What Are the Pros of Such Bail Reforms?
The apparent “pro” to bail reforms is that people will not be held in jail simply because they cannot produce bail money. Cash bail is unduly harsh to most people of less financial means. The bail reforms will also prohibit excessive bail from being set on minor charges. One study found that of the 5,000 persons detained pending trial in New York City, 43% would have been released under the new bail reforms. And of the 205,000 cases arraigned in 2018, only 10% would have been eligible for monetary bail under the new laws.
People also will not be held on bail when police or prosecutors’ “overcharge” a defendant. Many lower-level felony charges will eventually resolve as either a misdemeanor or with a non-criminal disposition. If bail were set on the felony charge, a defendant might spend time in jail for a case that ends up as a mere violation.
Another “pro” is that there will be less of a strain on prisons. If fewer people are detained, jails can better allocate their resources. Some may see this as a “con,” however, as there may be fewer jobs in local correctional institutions.
What Are the Cons?
The biggest “con” is that public safety will no longer be considered for setting bail. Some persons accused of robbery and burglary –violent felonies – will be released without bail. Those defendants may indeed pose a risk to public safety. What if it was a string of burglaries or robberies? Might they commit the offense again?
Also, many persons charged with drug felonies will be released without bail. While not a gun or a knife, some drugs – such as fentanyl – are so deadly that the public may be in danger. And drug dealers who are not caught with guns may still have access to weapons. Such happened in New Jersey after the state enacted its bail reforms.
Finally, bail reforms may erode the public’s confidence in the system. If a victim sees the perpetrator back on the street, will the victim feel safe? While an Order of Protection provides some level of assurance, in the end, it is just a piece of paper. Without a judge determining what level of dangerousness a defendant may pose, the Legislature may be forcing the release of persons who may commit additional crimes.
These errant politicians should be forced to step down from office or placed under arrest for not enforcing the law. Releasing criminals back on the street facilitates more criminal activity and endangers citizens. These elected officials are not above the law.
Release and Distributed by the Stand Up America US Foundation
Contact: suaus1961@gmail.com
The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.
