Self Empowerment
The general proposal of your email is that we have a Constitution in form only, and that it is to be compared to a loaded gun with no bullets to enforce it. I respectfully disagree. There are 'enforcement provisions'. I don't think the Constitution is a gun sans bullets so much as I think the Constitution is a fully loaded gun with no general population as a whole brave enough to pull the trigger. In the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 unmistakably declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Clause 3 fortifies the Supremacy Clause by mandating that "judicial Officers" of the several states take an "Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Courts have ruled that the United States also constitutes a "state".
Article I Section 10 of the Constitution states that no state can pass any laws impairing the obligations of contracts. In an indirect way of speaking, contracts are the "enforcement provision" of the Constitution. Contract law supersedes all other types of law, as contract law is the law on which all other laws are based. When a judge takes an Oath of Office, he is entering into a binding contract with the American people, in which he affirms that he will uphold the Constitution. The Bible states at Galatians 3:15 that, even though a contract is made between mortal men, once that contract is confirmed (executed), then NO MAN may disannul (void) or add anything to (change the wording of) that contract. When a judge violates his Oath of Office, the proper action is to send that judge an affidavit, affirmed and notarized under penalty of perjury. It should require that judge to affirm with his own affidavit under penalty of perjury and notarized, that his actions were correct, and to rebut each and every charge in your affidavit on a point-by-point basis. If he does not do so, or fails to answer altogether, then he is in default, and has admitted your charges as truth. In a court of law, an unrebutted affidavit always stands as truth.
Your asseveration that people are unable to force judges to obey their Oaths of Office is incorrect. That Oath constitutes a contract, and if he breaches that contract, he may be tried just as any regular citizen may. The Courts have ruled that if a judge intentionally commits wrongs, then he ceases to act as a judge, and acts as a private citizen, and is not immune from prosecution. What if your affidavit doubles as a novation, which holds that if a judge fails to answer your affidavit, or gives a deficient answer (one not sworn to under penalty of perjury and notarized which rebuts the charges levied in your affidavit on a point-by-point basis) then he agrees to voluntarily relinquish his rights to due process, including but not limited to, immunity of any type, statutes of limitations, appeals of any type, trial by jury, jurisdiction/venue? If he does not answer, or gives a deficient answer, then he has voluntarily given up his option of immunity under contract. Since no state may pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts, the courts could not use state statute or [state] Constitutional provisions of immunity to protect him.
Trust me when I tell you, I am the last person that any judge would ever 'give' a win in order to appease me. To the contrary, every judge I've ever been involved with has gone out of his way to deny my rights (even if breaking the law to do so). I am simply taking that power of their self-perceived discretion away from them, and letting them know that if they do not honor their Oaths of Office they will be prosecuted, and they are not immune. To 'give' me a win in the General Registrar case would drastically alter the state's voter registration laws and procedures contrary to the state's alleged intent. It will set their voter identification law agenda back at least 50 years. Given the way states are pushing to use the SSN to identify people, I think you would agree that NO STATE will "voluntarily" do that!
There is already one state judge who stands to be prosecuted in this matter for a host of crimes, and, because he is bound by an Oath of Office, he has REFUSED to come to her aid since I served her with the affidavit. (Before I served her with the affirmed notarized affidavit, he ran to help her every chance he got). Now all of a sudden, he is deathly silent. Why? Because he wants to appease me out of the kindness of his heart? RIGHT! He is afraid for his job as well as his legal future because it has become terrifyingly clear to him that I am playing the one card he simply forgot about. The Commonwealth's Attorney has also gone out of his way to avoid representing her. Is it a coincidence that attorneys are also under an Oath of Office? Methinks not. The bottom line is that these people are NOT going to proverbially stick their necks out for her, because they KNOW she broke the law, and she's been caught dead to rights. She affirmed that fact by defaulting on the affidavit which accused her of the crimes.
I am happy to help you any way that I can, but I cannot avail myself of the idea that my method is blind luck. It has worked every time I have used it. God has provided me with this knowledge, and I intend to use it!
Craig Burkholder
Suffolk, Virginia
Phase I Ends 
Orange Lite
Closed
Closed
