Officials, counties sued over oaths

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?"

TRENDING: Trump has a pathway to victory in appeal of Facebook ban

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?"