Public servants are bound by an oath of honest government.
Why is EU acting differently?
Joe Biden used his presidential powers to pardon about 4000 criminals, suspected criminals and traitors. He also pardoned his son Hunter for all crimes committed for the previous ten years. His laptop contains ample evidence. It did not matter whether the authorities knew about his multi-million dollar crimes or not, or whether Hunter was aware or not of his other crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
All crimes were expunged. Welcome to the age of politicians acting above the law. The pardon is being used not to right the wrongly convicted but to avoid rightful conviction.
What about the EU?
Biden has dealt with a large group of people who were not indicted for crimes but were denounced by the public for various outrageous misconduct. He wants to set them above the law.
This batch included General Milley (who infamously admitted that he told the Chinese twice that he would warn them if the US president took aggressive action), Dr Fauci (who was involved in Covid-19 mRNA ‘vaccines’ that were thrust on the public without the usual years-long testing), Senator Schiff (who spearheaded the attempted impeachment of Donald Trump based on edited evidence) and Liz Cheney (a ‘Republican’ on the Jan 6 committee) and all anti-Trump prosecutors and ‘experts’. Naughty people. The select committee destroyed interviews and evidence that was likely to cast doubts on their impartiality and show they were set up as a Kangaroo court.
Biden’s huge list was not so much about pardons but an instrument to obstruct investigation to identify crimes of his administration that weaponized justice like the Communists did in Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe and the Nazis in the West.
….
Due process is cut short by the presidential presumptive pardons. Wouldn’t everybody like a ‘Get out of Jail’ card? This was more. It was a presumptive ‘Never ever go to Jail’ card. It ensured that nothing they did over the last decade could be considered a crime.
And then in the last minutes before Donald Trump took his oath of office, Biden pardoned members of what Congress investigators called the ‘Biden crime family’ involving bribes, contracts and influence peddling.
I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden.
Why were these pardons necessary?
An honest family doesn’t require umbrella protection from the Courts. Maybe it was a sense of guilt and a fear of revenge. Donald Trump had been subject to four separate legal attacks, on different topics, that might have put him in jail for more than 700 years. Plus two or more assassination attempts. There is nothing consistent in the charges except an opportunity to keep Trump out of office again. So is a bullet. Court cases costs him millions in legal fees to expose the tactics. They took away his time from campaigning by forced Court presence.
Most of the charges evaporated on closer legal examination as being ‘the weaponization of justice’ by the White House making up and coordinating cases without any real substance. ‘Something I know something about,’ said Trump. Only one case remains. This was a minor book-keeping case that eminent professors of accountancy said was no error at at all. This one tax ‘crime’ was made into 37 offences in New York where up to 97 percent voters are Democrat. For that, Democrats and their media can say ‘Trump is a felon.’
Political Weaponizing the Justice system
Even Trump lawyers and former officials have been subject to unprecedented dawn raids for what turned out to be frivolous but politically paralysing investigations. ‘Using the immense power of the State to persecute political opponents.’
Biden illegally stored secret documents without safekeeping yet other criteria applied to him. Trump’s home at Mar a Lago was raided with armed agents and medical backup as if expecting a gunfight. Maybe the political operatives hoped for armed resistance.
What was the motive of the Biden administration to ‘pardon’ his entourage or try to annul any crime, uncovered or not?
Fear of persecution? Or evidence of guilt? One of the first acts of President Trump was an Executive Order forbidding all US agencies to weaponize the law against political opponents.
How did this fissure of trust between government and the people arrive?
‘Oath of Office’ Crime
Public officials are liable for a crime that ordinary members of the public are not liable to. Violating an oath of office. Lying, perjury and misuse of public office are crimes. The oath spells out their duties and moral obligations. Only crooks or those distorting laws for nefarious purposes need executive pardons. Justice eventually frees their innocent victims. Injustice cries out to all. An oath of office spells out in summary that politicians must be honest servants to all constitutional law.
Violating an oath of office is a criminal offence in America, both at the federal level and the State level. For example:
Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress
In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.
Painful too. A State public official can be convicted of a felony for violating an oath of office and face between one to five years in prison.
How does Europe fare?
The oath of office is the first line of defense of democracy and fair and just government. That’s why it was highlighted in the first treaties. Following the distortions of justice by Nazis, collaborators and Communists, people needed reassurance of fair government and justice. Reconciliation of nations must be built on honest leadership who can be held accountable.
On the first day of action of the European Community, President Jean Monnet spoke for all Commissioners when he declared:
‘In the name of all, I repeat publicly the engagement that each of us has undertaken in accepting their nomination.
We exercise our functions in full independence, in the general interest of the Community. In the accomplishment of our duties we will not accept instructions from any government, nor any organism and we will abstain from all acts incompatible with the supranational character of our functions. We take note of the engagement of Member States to respect this supranational character and not to seek to influence us in the execution of our tasks.’
Any violation of impartiality, any act of partisanship, any act of collusion can be challenged in Court. The oath is now far more stringent than the judges. Did it help?
First day, first act
Does the European Commission take this oath seriously or does it thumb its nose at the public? Over the years the oath has become even more detailed. Why? Because treaty-writers were appalled at the flagrant Democratic Deficit and closed-door government. The extra lines in the oath of office are a good indicator of this decline.
Now the delay tactic.
On 1 December 2024 the second von der Leyen Commission took office.
It still has not taken the oath of office.
A few days later in December, as the Commission had already started work, I asked the Commission:
Why do the Commissioners not make their oath of office BEFORE they start work?
By the oath they affirm to take personal legal responsibility to be fair, impartial and follow the treaties, laws and regulations in an open way. The oath is similar but more stringent than that the judges make. It is obviously a major legal aspect that can be raised in court.
The EU Commission seems to be the only governance body that does not insist on the oath before work begins. For example in the UK and USA the oath of office marks the start of legally recognised office. It is also the case in European countries.
Can you please explain this anomaly in the EU. Why next year?
The Commission services answered:
Under the Treaty, taking the oath is not a legal prerequisite to take up duties as a Commissioner.
It is a solemn ceremony, therefore does not have a constitutive nature.
This is why it can take place after taking office.
Not have a constitutive nature? What nonsense is this?
It has major legal importance on all its policies.
It is vital to establish public trust as an occasion to be widely televised.
Why is the oath of office a major event in USA and not in the EU?
The tardiness is highly suspicious about intrinsic lack of transparency.
It masks the undemocratic way a ruling clique is set in place and
it sounds the tocsin for a worsening future.
Oaths are taken at the inauguration of a new government and leadership.
Sloppy slide to anarchy
The EU changes and sloppiness of oath-taking go against customary law in almost all democratic systems in the world. There is good reason to follow customary law. Reason must be given for rejecting it. It is more logical to embrace its moral and ethical principles. It is better to re-instate it where it has occasionally lapsed. Besides being widespread in Common Law countries, postwar Germany insisted on the oath of office for all offices, president, chancellor and ministers.
The oath of office is necessary so that the public or any complainant can bring a case that the office-holder, usually democratically elected, can be taken to court for not following honest, fair and open administration. The rules for honest government are adumbrated in the oath and involve a constitution or in the case of the European Union, the constitutionalizing treaties.
‘Not Guilty of Mismanagement’
Why does the Commission want to delay or defy the customary process? What happens when the president or prime minister or Commissioner commits fraud? One line of defence would be:
‘I just made some decisions that I considered right for me. I am not obliged to follow the treaties. I gave no guarantee that I would follow the constitution or the treaties. I didn’t promise not to lie, collude with the powerful, or accept bribes. That’s why I did not take the oath of office.’
What if a case went before the Court of Justice to accuse a Commissioner of violating public trust? I asked the Court’s press service to respond. They say the Court only responds once a complaint has been decided and judged. This allows the Commission to think it can violate normal laws until someone stops each and every miscreant act in Court.
The judges are awaiting the case. Most people would require Commissioners to affirm solemnly that they will be honest. That’s what witnesses do in Court. Obviously the present Commission doesn’t.
The judges know what is right and wrong. They take their oath of office before they start work.
The Press Service is only in a position to reply to questions concerning the Court of Justice.
Furthermore, we are not in a position to comment on issues such as legal effects of the timing of the taking of oaths by Commissioners as this would prejudice the Court's role of interpreter of the rules through its judgments.
Insofar as the judges of the Court are concerned, new judges nominated by Member States and approved by the Council are sworn in shortly after at the Court itself.
You may wish to refer to the following press release concerning the latest partial renewal of the Court of Justice and entry into office of new Members of the General Court: Press Release No. 174/24.
If the Court of Justice ensures that its judges swear their oath of office before they start judging the cases, what gives the Commissioners the right not to do the same?
Democratic Defiance
What makes the European Commission feel they are above worldwide legal practice and take the Oath of Office any time they please? They already violate elementary democracy on the most vital issues of transparency. Is it beyond them to say:
‘My word is my bond and I will pursue open government.’
Across the globe, the Oath signifies that the president, prime minister, minister or judge is subject to the constitution of the land and the rule of law.
Is the Commission above the Rule of Law? Is it better than all the other jurisdictions of law in the world?
Oaths do not only apply to States. The Secretary General of the United Nations takes an oath of office before entering his functions.
So do the following countries were the leader takes an oath at inauguration.
And personal integrity? Why have none of the Commissioners said ‘We represent the people under the rule of law and transparency. We should take our oath of office before we start the work of law-making. I refuse to proceed unless we do.’?
Do they have the courage, character and independence to hold the office?
Why do the von der Leyen Commissioners think they are so much better than the following?
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Canada
China
Costa Rica
Croatia
Egypt
Fiji
Finland
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
South Korea
Lebanon
Luxembourg
Malaysia
Mexico
Moldova
Myanmar
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
San Marino
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
