It Appears That The State of California No Longer Issues Bonds on Employees, Making the Entire State Level Government Illegitimate!

OVERVIEW

It appears that, while Reagan was in office as Governor of California, the standard operating procedures of the California State Level government changed in ways which violate California Government Code Section 1450 – 1463 — issuing bonds.

Without bonds, the entire State Level Government of California is likely illegitimate. We the people have the power to remove them for working unlawfully. The question is, how do go about removing them all and replacing them?????? I have no clue, but I am searching for solutions.

DETAILS ON BONDS

According to both Federal and California law, bonds are supposed to be issued on every government employee. This is codified in California Government Code Section 1450 – 1463.

Per CGCS 1455, these bonds are supposed to be recorded with the Department of General Services (DGS) and filed in the Secretary of State’s office (SOS). Someone sent me Ronald Regan’s oaths and bond from when Reagan was governor. This person had gotten them from the SOS. Interestingly enough, a bond was issued on Ronald Reagan back in 1966. However, the SOS didn’t have a bond on file for 1971.

Throughout 2023, I made several requests for copies of the bonds/insurance policies from DGS for many different people/agencies. Every time, DGS responded that they had no bond/insurance records. Here are the responses: June 19 and 26, July 11, 2023 (one FTB employee), July 21, 2023 (one FTB employee), July 21, 2023 (one more FTB employee), August 10, 2023 (six FTB employees), and October 3, 2023 (a state senator and her deputy, a FTB employee, a judge, and two SCO employees). To be fair, the response said they had no records of bonds on these “FTB Employees.” I responded with clarification of which agency each of the people worked at, but DGS never responded. I also copied the Secretary of State on that clarification email, and the SOS also never responded.

On October 18, 2023, I requested copies of the bonds/insurance policies from the SOS on sixteen people. On November 1, 2023, the SOS responded that they had no records of bonds on any of these people.

When I called the SOS to find out why they didn’t have the bonds filed as required per law, three different people that I spoke with said they did not believe that the SOS had bonds filed there, that they’d never heard of bonds being required before, and they had no idea CGCS 1450 – 1463 existed. They suggested that I contact each of the agencies directly to get the copies of the bonds. Given the enormity of the State Level government, the SOS should be filing new employee bonds daily. For the SOS to not be aware of the existence of bonds indicates to me that bonds aren’t being issued.    

On November 13, 2023, I asked GovOps — which is the oversight agency for DGS and several other State Level agencies — if they had bond records in their office. I specifically asked for the bonds on the same 16 people that I’d asked for from the SOS. GovOps said that they did not hold the requested bond records. Since GovOps is the oversight agency, I repeatedly asked GovOps to disclose to me which agency holds the bond records, and GovOps stated that they had no guidance to offer beyond contacting the various agencies directly. When I asked if the State of California was issuing bonds anymore, DGS failed to answer.

Per California law, failure to deny constitutes admission: Any material allegation in the complaint that is not effectively denied is deemed admitted. [CCP § 431.20(a); see Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 CA3d 492, 504, 227 CR 318, 325]. I believe that by not responding, GovOps essentially admitted that bonds were not being issued by the State of California.

On November 13, 2023, I also asked for the same information from the Open Data Project, which responded that they have no bond records.

On November 19, 2023, I contacted the Department of General Services again and asked for copies of four of their employee’s oaths and bonds, as well as for all pages of their policy and procedure manuals which pertain to bonds. DGS (eventually) provided all four oaths (they had trouble locating one), but stated that they had no bonds on file for any of these people. They also stated that bonds were not addressed in their policy and procedure manuals. 

DGS is supposed to be recording these bonds, yet DGS also has no policies and procedures for the receiving, recordation and forwarding of bonds to the SOS for filing? ORIM, the department that handles insurance claims against government employees, is a division of DGS, yet DGS doesn’t mention that ORIM is now utilized in lieu of bonds? 

On November 19, 2023, I also contacted GovOps to ask for the same information, except only for two of their employees. GovOps responded the same: provided the oaths and said they didn’t have bonds and their manuals didn’t address bonds.

The California Department of Justice response was infuriating. Back in 2022, the DOJ tried to play a deceptive word game with me by saying that attorneys are not required to be bonded in California, hence the reason Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan had no bond. Michelle Mitchell of the DOJ went so far as to commit fraud by denying the existence of CGCS 1450 – 1463. This time around, the DOJ tried to play that deceptive word game with me again. When I called the DOJ out on their deception, and they simply replied that they had no documents responsive to my request.

On February 1, 2024, The Franchise Tax Board sent me a letter in which they did not acknowledge the issue I had brought up about their employees not having bonds. FTB just ignored the bonds as if I had never brought the issue up. Remember, failure to deny constitutes admission of truth: While FTB stated that FTB believed that the employees with unexecuted oaths were working lawfully, FTB didn’t deny that the employees without bonds were working unlawfully.

I contacted The Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), the department that advises the legislators on how to write legislation, and asked for copies of two of their employee’s oaths and bonds, as well as all pages of their policy and procedure manuals which pertain to bonds and oaths. On February 2, 2024, Kathryn Londenberg committed fraud by stating that the OLC are not required to turn over these records. I sent the OLC laws/acts showing that the OLC is still subject to HR disclosure laws. OLC has never responded to my allegations that they have violated the LORA/CPRA laws. Failure to deny constitutes admission of truth.

BONDS SUMMARY: 

Per CGCS 1455, DGS is supposed to be recording these bonds, yet DGS doesn’t have any records of bonds. DGS also has no policies and procedures for the receiving, recordation and forwarding of bonds to the SOS for filing. DGS oversees ORIM, yet never stated that ORIM was a lawful alternative to bonds. The SOS is supposed to be filing these bonds, yet they have no bond records for recent decades.

At this point, it appears that the State of California stopped issuing bonds altogether at some point after 1966 and switched to a blanket self-insurance policy administered by ORIM. I believe that if this change had been lawful, at least one of the agencies that I contacted would have explained how the change happened and directed me to ORIM. I find the fact that none of the agencies have provided any information on ORIM or why the state wasn’t complying with California Government Code Section 1450 – 1463 to be disconcerting. All I have gotten from the various state agencies on the topic is silence, and I have learned that silence from the State is usually tacit admission of guilt.

Since the State of California never repealed the individual bond laws set forth in California Government Code Section 1450 – 1463 , the individual bonds still are required by law. And even if California had tried to repeal the bond laws, it wouldn’t have stood legally because it is a federal requirement.

It also stands to reason that the State insuring itself against its employees doing unlawful things to benefit the State is a conflict of interest that can’t possibly be ethical. 

I believe that, without bonds, the entire State Level California government is working illegitimately.

DETAILS ON OATHS

Edit on Feb, 11, 2024: Someone sent me a synopsis of Jesson v. David (2002). The ruling explains the change in oath:

“…the California Supreme Court in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal. 2d 18 found paragraph 2 of the oath to be invalid under the United States Constitution. That is, it would violate the Constitution of the United States for California to require that language. Our high court concluded that two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, and Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 385 U.S. 589, compelled such a result.”

But I’ve left the rest of the original post intact below because it is interesting information and potentially useful knowledge.

5 US Code 3331 requires that anyone who works in any government job is required to take an Oath of Office. The oath is required to have specific wording. The last line of the statute says “This section does not affect other oaths required by law.”

The California Constitution, Section XX, Section 3 omits the words “So help me God” from that paragraph, and also requires three additional paragraphs. Here is the required California wording:

 “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

 “And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____

and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

From: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%203.&article=XX

I have to go back and check all of the oaths that I have collected so far, but I don’t recall receiving a single oath that has the wording in full as required by California Constitution, Section XX, Section 3. I’m pretty sure that every oath I’ve received only has the first paragraph (sans the “So help me God”).

I’m still working on confirming this, but because of the last sentence of 5 US Code 3331, I believe that without the full wording in accordance with state law, none of the oaths are valid. And since that paragraph omits the “So help me God,” portion that is required by 5 US Code 3331, I don’t believe it could be considered valid under federal law, either.

Since most of the oaths that I’ve received are on standardized forms, it appears that the entire State Level Government is taking invalid oaths as a part of standard operations, and thus the entire State Level Government is illegitimate. .

Interestingly enough, the first two oaths that Ronald Reagan took in 1966 and 1967 were full oaths. But the oath he took in 1971 was only the first paragraph. Thus, it appears that sometime between 1968 and 1970, the State of California government stopped following the oath and bond laws.

Note: I am not suicidal, I don’t have depression issues, I am a careful driver, I rarely drink alcohol, and I do not use drugs of any kind (not even aspirin). My family lives a wholesome life. If something happens to me or my family that is out of character for us, we were set up by the State of California as revenge for exposing their crimes.