Why are Governors, Mayors, and District Attorneys seemingly immune to the law regarding criminal negligence, fostering illegal activity, and violating their oath of office? Why are they not swiftly removed from their positions? We cannot afford to wait for the next election cycle to address the escalating criminal activities in our cities. When citizens witness negligence persisting and even promoting more criminal activity, these officials must be immediately ousted from their roles. The recent forced resignations in St. Louis serve as a stark reminder of the urgency of this issue!
“Violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure by an elective public officer 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 violating oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311, including (1) removal from office and (2) confinement or a fine. “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450, which supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311 for enforcement. Is violation of oath a felony? They will be guilty of a felony. The oath was not administered correctly: If the officer was not issued an oath, or it was not prescribed by law, they will not be guilty of violating it.
A leader and Politician President whose character is marked by every act that 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, assert our power and hold them to their Lawful Oath. We 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 as an 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. When a 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 state 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 directly in domestic violence education classes. These same suspects are often needed 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. Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Still other suspects must attend anger management classes immediately, 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?
People 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 a consideration 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 resign or arrested 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
This article was published at Paul Vallely’s Substack
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.
