The Federal Challenge

"Even if Judge DeKleva's oaths of office were in any way irregular, which Judge DeKleva does not concede in the least, such would not entitle Plaintiff to the relief he seeks, and thus dismissal of Plaintiff's claim is appropriate."

The AG filing was submitted to the federal court as Annex A to Doc. 49-1, Case No. 6:24-cv-01591-CEM-LHP, filed December 27, 2024, requesting judicial notice under Federal Rules of Evidence 201(c)(2) as a self-authenticating government document under FRE 902(5). It is now part of the permanent federal court record.

The First Act of Congress (1 Stat. 23) does not permit redundancies — it establishes a "closed set." It specifies a single, immutable constitutional document as the sole object of allegiance and excludes any mention of governments, states, or corporate entities. By adding "Government" and the "State of Florida," the Florida oath shifts allegiance from a constitutional document to two specific corporate entities registered in the federal commercial system. This is not a stylistic choice — it is a substitution of the source of authority.

The evidence shows these registrations go far beyond payroll. The "Government of the United States" is registered as a Parent UEI NW2RJN8TQQW1 — confirmed via NSF Award #1830771 — including manufacturing contractors like Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR). Furthermore, the Florida judiciary is registered nine times in SAM.gov under NAICS Code 922110 (Courts) — a commercial industry classification. When a judge swears to a "Government" that identifies as a commercial awardee in a procurement system, they are swearing into a commercial hierarchy, not a constitutional office.

Norton holds that an unconstitutional act "confers no rights... and creates no office." Under the logical chain, the act of qualifying for the office is what is unconstitutional — not the office's creation. Because the qualification act is unconstitutional, the assumption of that office is "inoperative as though it had never been passed." Without a lawful act of qualification, the individual cannot legally occupy the office — rendering it legally non-existent in contemplation of law, regardless of how the office was created.

1 Stat. 23 is the "mandatory federal oath standard" and operates as an exclusive requirement — it names a document and "excludes any mention of 'governments,' specific 'states,' or 'corporate entities.'" Because the Supremacy Clause makes this federal statute the governing law for state officers, any deviation is a structural failure. One cannot swear allegiance to a constitutional document and a commercial hierarchy simultaneously without creating a conflict of interest that violates the federal exclusivity of the 1789 standard.

The Florida Attorney General already attempted this exact defense in Case No. 59-2024-CA-000138 — which constitutes a fatal concession that the oath is indeed irregular. However, Norton v. Shelby County explicitly foreclosed this defense: "There never was and never can be a de facto office under the present constitution." The doctrine only applies to irregular appointments to a legally existing office. If the office itself is non-existent because the qualification act was unconstitutional, no "de facto" status can ever attach.

Research is underway to identify when the word "Government" was first introduced into the Florida judicial oath — and whether that introduction predates or postdates the Act of 1871. If the substitution of "Constitution" for "Government" occurred after the commercial incorporation framework was established, it may reflect a deliberate structural change rather than a drafting oversight.