By Christopher Hansen,
I was in a deposition today. I am being sued by the State of Nevada because I would not give an AFFIRMATION on an election campaign form that was not required by election laws because I received and spent less than $100 (whatever that is?) concerning information that was undefined by law. No I am not joking.
I found out today what Judge Wilson and Deputy Attorney General Clark Leslie thought of the Oath or Affirmation they took to protect and defend the Constitutions of Nevada and the USA when these two tyrants, in a conspiracy to deprive me of my rights, attempted to compel me, by threat of sanctions, to take an affirmation while refusing to allow me to take the oath of my choice or any oath at all.
Here is the affirmation AND THE REQUIRED ANSWER they tried to force me to take.
You do solemnly affirm that the evidence you shall give in this issue (or matter), pending between The State of Nevada v. Christopher Hansen, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Assent to this affirmation shall be made by the answer, “I do.â€
NRS 50.035 has a rather different view. It is clear that an oath OR and affirmation can be taken and not just an affirmation:
NRS 50.035 Oath or affirmation.
1. Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.
An affirmation does not call upon God. An oath calls upon God for help. Such an oath does not call upon the Catholic God or the Muslim God or the Atheist non-god or the Jewish God. It calls upon the God of the person taking oath. After all, if I were to swear and oath to tell the truth and ask the God Neptune for help and I did not believe that Neptune was a God then the oath itself would be a lie.
But these two religious bigots, Wilson and Leslie, decided that I was to be FORCED to give an affirmation even though I find them religiously repugnant for MYSELF (not any of you reading this).
Naturally the court and Leslie did not get their way. I refused to give an affirmation and would have rather gone to jail than to give an non-God recognizing affirmation. Clark Leslie, in violation of the Court Order, however, agreed to have the Notary give me the normal oath after a bit of loud exchanges but refused to allow me to give the oath I wrote.
This is exactly the problem I have been fighting with these religiously intolerant tyrants from the beginning. These tyrants are in direct violation of Gordon v Idaho. The circumstances are very similar:
The defendants in the instant federal civil rights action served Gordon with a Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum and an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum requiring him to appear at a deposition and testify under oath. Gordon appeared at the deposition but, because of his religious beliefs, refused to swear under oath or make an alternative affirmation. The defendants thereafter moved the district court to compel discovery. The district court granted that motion and specifically ordered Gordon either to swear or affirm before testifying at the rescheduled deposition. At the second deposition, Gordon again refused both to swear under oath or to affirm before testifying. The defendants thereafter filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) FN1 for failure to comply with the court’s order. Following a hearing on the motion, the district court dismissed Gordon’s federal civil rights action with prejudice. Gordon timely filed this appeal. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Gordon v. State of Idaho 778 F.2d 1397, 1399 (C.A.9 (Idaho),1985)
The court continued to sound eerily like what just happened to me except the Court would not even allow me to take an oath but only an affirmation that the court wrote the order which “specified the precise language” of the affirmation.
In this case, the district court ordered Gordon to take an oath or to make an alternative affirmation before giving his deposition. The court’s order specified the precise language that such an oath or alternativeaffirmation was to take, despite Gordon’s religious objection to taking an oath or using the word “affirmation.†The court abused its discretion in insisting that Gordon use either the word “swear†or “affirm†in light of Gordon’s sincere religious objections.
So if the court abused its digression in Gordon’s case I wonder if the Court abused its digression in my case?
The Ninth Circuit Court threw out the judges 100% unconstitutional ruling stating:
Gordon has demonstrated that raising his right hand and swearing an oath or making an affirmation violates his sincerely-held religious beliefs. The district court, therefore, should have explored the least restrictive means of assuring that Gordon would testify truthfully at his deposition. At oral argument before our court, Gordon said that before his deposition is taken he is willing to state: “I understand that I must tell the truth. I agree to testify under penalty of perjury. I understand that if I testify falsely I may be subject to criminal prosecution.†This statement, we believe, would satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d). By failing to explore less restrictive means of assuring truthful deposition testimony, the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed Gordon’s federal civil rights action. The court, therefore, erred in dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to comply with the discovery order directing Gordon to take an oath or make an affirmation.
I supplied the court and the Secretary of State and the Attorney General with Gordon v. State of Idaho and they ignored the law and the Constitution.
I have been fighting violators of the Constitution since I was a young boy but I have never seen such an in your face and shove your religion you will practice your religion the way we say you will attitude as from these two tyrants.
Be careful Nevadans. These two tyrant criminal oath violators are on the prowl and your rights may be violated next.
Well there was no cross but there sure was a Gold trimmed flag and Fascism.