The State of Georgia (AD 1788) The County of Macon (AD 1837) The United States of America (AD

1789-1791)

} } Subscribed and affirmed }

Affidavit of (parent's name redacted) (Parents ) re: Alicia (Lisa) Coogle Rambo (attorney) impersonates a public officer A criminal violation at Georgia statute: 16-10-23. Impersonating a public officer or employee A person who falsely holds himself out as a peace officer or other public officer or employee with intent to mislead another into believing that he is actually such officer commits the offense of impersonating an officer and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. By way of Lisa's actions, inactions, and her signed Oaths it has been well evidenced that Lisa Coogle Rambo has been impersonating a Judge. Lisa's criminal actions occurred and continue to be perpetrated within the County of Sumter and County of Macon, Georgia. Lisa Coogle Rambo has presented herself as a Public Trustee yet without dejure authority of a Public Trustee. This complaint is being made by Beneficiaries of the Public Trust (parent's names redacted). Lisa Coogle Rambo performed activities well outside the authority and discretion of a dejure Judge: 1. Lisa did sign an "Order for Shelter Care" that was unsupported by Oath or Affidavit. Repeated requests for the Oath or affidavit in support of the Order of Shelter Care" were at all times ignored by Lisa Rambo. A Judge is not authorized to sign any documents that fails to be compliant with the requirements of the Law as found at the fourth amendment. The "Order for Shelter Care" was created and signed under color of Law and was intended to deceive people into believing that a dejure Judge had authorized a Lawful seizure of a natural person. 2. Lisa did sign a document titled, "72 HOUR HEARING ORDER/PROTECTIVE ORDER". This document contained explicit terroristic threats to the parents of (child's name redacted). A Judge is not authorized to threaten to kidnap children for parental refusal to sign a document . 3. Lisa did sign a document titled,"APPOINTMENT OF COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATE" which was written and authorized under color of Law to deceive medical providers into believing they were Lawfully compelled to disclose private and protected medical information to a C.A.S.A.

Page 1 of 8

4. Lisa Coogle Rambo failed to protect an innocent child and his parents due process and fourth amendment rights which resulted in that child being kidnapped and harmed by his captors. A Judge is not authorized to enable people including innocent children to be kidnapped, harmed, and their rights violated with impunity. 5. Lisa Coogle Rambo was personally and by way of her DFCS and CASA servants alerted that her order for parents to attend an immunization class was in direct conflict with the family's conscious and religious beliefs. Lisa refused to protect the parents' rights as expressed at the first amendment thereby making clear that she was and is not a Judge. Again, a Judge must support the Constitution. Made clear by Lisa's actions and inactions was the fact that she made war with the Constitution and with the (family name redacted) family. 6. Lisa Coogle Rambo did authorize under color of Law the experimental medical treatment known as a TIG injection. the TIG shot VIS(vaccine information sheet) per the manufacturer reads, "Pediatric Use: Safety and effectiveness in the pediatric population have not been established." According to the AAPS website: "Safety testing of many vaccines is limited and the data are unavailable for independent scrutiny, so that mass vaccination is equivalent to human experimentation and subject to the Nuremberg Code, which requires voluntary informed consent;" A Judge is not authorized to order or enable anyone at any time to perform experimental medical procedures on a child against parental consent as has Lisa Rambo. 7. Lisa Coogle Rambo did authorize under color of Law a medical procedure (tetanus / diphtheria vaccination) expressly forbidden by the parents. A judge is not authorized to violate the fundamental parental right to direct and control medical treatment of a parents' child especially when that treatment has resulted in the death and permanent disability of children. 8. Lisa Coogle Rambo is without the proper Article VI Oath as required by Law. Exhibit A annexed to this document evidences this fact. 9. Lisa Coogle Rambo is still required to support the Constitution regardless of having an Article VI Oath as the Supremacy clause make abundantly clear. Even so, Lisa refused to support the Law of the Land. For the above reasons and at all times during this instant matter, Lisa Coogle Rambo has impersonated a public official under the color of Law in order to economically benefit herself and others at the expense of her victims' physical health, mental health, economic health in addition to boldly violate their natural rights. A Judge. a servant of the People, a Trustee of the Public Trust is simply not authorized to do that which Lisa Coogle Rambo has done to this family. Therefore, Lisa is simply not a Judge although she falsely claims to be one.

Page 2 of 8

Exhibit A
Observations and conclusions specific to "Oath(s)" Alicia (Lisa) Coogle Rambo, signatory For the purposes of this discovery the following enumerated points are asserted: 1. 2. Both the "LOYALTY OATH" and the "OATH OF JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT" (aka performance oath) were written by wo(men) learned in the supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Law of the Land is the organic de jure Constitution for the United States of America(AD 1789-1791), including the Preamble thereto, within the express purview of the Declaration of Independence(AD 1776), and as restricted in perpetuity by Articles I through X of Amendment First thereto(AD 1791), including the Preamble thereof. Article VI, clause II at the Constitution for the United States of America(AD 1789-1791) is understood to be the "supremacy" clause which specifically states, " Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,..."The express language at Article VI, clause II articulates the Supreme Law of the

3.

Land as "binding" on all "Judges" whether they take an Oath or not.

4. Article VI , clause III at the Constitution for the United States of America(AD 1789-1791) is understood to be the "oaths" clause which specifically states, " ...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;...". The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, in the Case of McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland at paragraph 15 in AD 1819 references Article VI, clause III, " ...the people have, in express terms, decided it, by saying, this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States, shall take the oath of fidelity to it. " The Constitution of Georgia (AD 1788) at Paragraph I. Origin and foundation of government: All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely f or the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them. Paragraph II. Object of government: The people of this state have the inherent right of regulating their internal government. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and at all times they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. Dann Slayden III of the House(family) Cross, in esse and Sharon Kate of the House(family) Cross nee/Harvey, in esse are politically unencumbered beneficiaries of the public trust embodied in the unabridged, organic de jure Constitution for the United States of America(AD 1789-1791), including the Preamble thereto, within the express purview of the Declaration of Independence(AD 1776), and as restricted in perpetuity by Articles I through X of Amendment First thereto(AD 1791), including the Preamble thereof.

5.

6.

7.

Page 3 of 8

8.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 mandated that the Supreme Court Justices must swear a second Oath of Office herein regarded as a "performance oath". The original text :
"I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Judges can wear two different "hats" though not simultaneously. A judge may act within a judicial capacity (determining if a statute is in compliance with the Constitution) or when they are acting in a ministerial capacity (in relation to giving legislative statutes meaningful effect). This second oath initiates from a subordinate delegated power (legislative power) and not directly from the People (and their Constitution) is a performance oath which has application to judicial officers acting in either capacity in relation to the the general government and to the People. 9. A lawful Article VI oath does not allow for the inclusion of abstractions (legal fictions), or for the appearance of abstractions (legal fictions), vagary, or confusion in either the means or ends language of the document. Note: Keeping the mandate found at Canon 2 (Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct), "Avoid the appearance of impropriety." All caps lettering is a well known identifier of statutory fictions. Even the appearance(without substance) of an all caps legal fiction makes void any presumed Oath of fidelity. Why? Because our public trust document(Constitution) is for the express benefit of "We the People" which are natural persons(flesh and blood human beings). If ever a legal fiction such as a constructive trust were to be involved in an "Oath" then that fiction obviously cannot be "amenable" to "We the People" making abuse of the public trust a certainty as we see in this instant matter. Discoveries The Oath of fidelity(strict observance of obligations, promises, duties) creates both a fiduciary[A person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another(s).] relationship and a personal accountability( bond) . Judicial officers swear (or affirm) fidelity to the Constitution by expressing these words: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States ." With that being said, we now fix upon the actual oaths to which Lisa Rambo has been signatory: 1. LOYALTY OATH 2. OATH OF JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT (aka performance oath) LOYALTY OATH The "LOYALTY OATH" is not the same thing as a fidelity Oath to "support the Constitution of the United States" (of America, mandated by Article VI thereof ). The primary difference is that "loyalties" are bought and sold "commodities" under a wide variety of justifications. A commitment of fidelity, however, is not for sale under any circumstances. Notice that the "LOYALTY OATH" begins with the Seal and title "State of Georgia." That signifies that the rest of the document is being executed under organic enabling authority. The underline below the word, "Georgia" is not understood thus one of many defects arising from vagary. The title of the document is in all cap lettering which means the "loyalty" may be to a corporate entity(legal fiction).....which is further supported in the statement of venue ("STATE OF GEORGIA," and "COUNTY OF SUMTER") immediately below the title.

Page 4 of 8

Then seen is what may be a limited liability constructive trust entity styled "LISA C. RAMBO" (presumably exercising the powers, duties, and obligations of an "office" by and through the implied trustee thereof and signator Lisa C. Rambo) - which entity is further identified as a "citizen (not Citizen) of and....an employee of" the potential legal entity, "SUMTER COUNTY." It goes on to say that LISA C. RAMBO is "the recipient of public funds for services rendered as such employee..." The next phrase in that sentence is, "... do hereby solemnly swear and affirm..." This is an oxymoron nullity in that one is to do one or the other, but not both. The former invokes God's punishment for false swearing (bearing false witness). The latter invokes a man-made punishment for perjury. Those are mutually exclusive jurisdictions. The language used in the Supreme Law of the Land is "swear ( or affirm)." In other words, one has a choice between binding one's conscience under God's Law or agreeing to a known punishment under man's "laws." Then the body of the document finishes with "SO HELP ME GOD!" The term "God" is a proper noun title of an "office" (that's not His name) occupied by a living, sentient being. Unknown is who or what "GOD", but it's a pretty safe bet that, since it's in ALL CAPS, it may be some sort of fictional entity incapable of animating itself. The jurat is next and it says, "Sworn to..." and not "Sworn and affirmed..." Since the possible fictional trust entity LISA C. RAMBO has no conscience and cannot animate itself (and is incapable of committing perjury), one must assume that Lisa C. Rambo is doing the solemn swearing. As indicated near the bottom, this entire document is done under the authority of (O.C.G.A.....), which is private "law" belonging to the fictional (post Buck Act) federal franchise corporation entity STATE OF GEORGIA and is a franchise extension of the private "law" styled as "U.S.C.A." The point made here is that whenever ALL CAPS SPELLING is used, it either is or is in some way connected with a man-made fictional corporation entity that is not directly empowered by or directly answerable to God's Laws or the codification thereof within the organic law. That which God creates is real, what man "creates" is (one way or another) fictional. OATH OF JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT (aka performance oath) This second oath(first paragraph) is very loosely modeled after the oath created by the 1789 Judiciary Act. The following elements make this "performance oath" void insofar as the 1789 legislatively created oath and void insofar as being an Article VI oath: 1. Title and venue suggests the inclusion of legal fictions. 2. Body of document is pure confusion: a. LISA C. RAMBO may be a legal fiction b. swear(or affirm) is proper within a sea of error c. first sentence should read persons not person d. second sentence should read "rights" not "right" e. second sentence should read, "and to the rich" not "and the rich". f. third sentence references, "JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT" which may be a legal fiction g. third sentence should read, "...my abilities" not my ability. h. fourth sentence should not contain the word "and" prior to "agreeably". i. fourth sentence(and profoundly important) "..laws and Constitution.." should read, "...Constitution and laws...". due the proper order of priorities. j. Second paragraph is nullified with the improper language, "swear and affirm" k. Second paragraph phrase, "...this state" creates the question, "What State?". Page 5 of 8

l. Second paragraph boldly asserts, "I am not the holder of any office of trust under the government..." Properly, said sentence should read, "I am not the current holder of any office of trust under the government...". m. second paragraph, "I will support the Constitutions of the United States and..." should read "...Constitution..." n. "SO HELP ME GOD" same defects as the loyalty oath o. Jurat same defects as the loyalty oath p. O.C.G.A. is copyrighted private policy In Lisa Rambo's performance oath (of office), the phrase used is ".....laws and Constitution...." which is an executive (administrative) oath. Additionally, one does not put "laws" before "Constitution" in any sentence in any such (legitimate) document because the sequence establishes the order of priorities or importance. The Articles in the Bill of Rights were, by subject matter, arranged/sequenced in the order of importance (to the authors thereof) in relation to the entire document, which also clearly established original intent (in relation to its Preamble, as written). Article VI of the Supreme Law of the Land only mandates a fidelity "Oath or Affirmation" and makes no mention of a performance Oath. The only performance Oath in the Supreme Law of the Land is found at Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 which is an executive/administrative Oath (President). The first paragraph of the body of this "oath" says, "....and agreeably to the laws and Constitution...." . The problem is the use of "agreeably to." Unlike the phrases "in accordance with" or "in harmony with," the phrase "agreeably to" leaves the door wide open for contract by adhesion (by or through some undisclosed private corporation fiction). Two other terms that immediately come to mind with this phrase are verisimilitude and alter ego (doctrine). While the first paragraph is closer to correct: "...swear (or affirm)...," the second paragraph has the same oxymoron nullity "...swear and affirm..." as in the first "LOYALTY OATH". The first paragraph of the performance oath vacillates between Article VI compliance and non-compliance: 1. First paragraph: 2. Second paragraph: 3. Jurat: swear (or affirm) swear and affirm Sworn to

Additionally, the first clause of this second paragraph uses the term "this State" which is a statutory euphemism for the post Buck Act federal franchise municipality corporation styled IN ALL CAPS "state." "This" is an indefinite article while "the" is a definite article. Proper wording for this matter would be "the State" or even better, "the State of Georgia" The third clause of this second paragraph says, "...I am not the holder of any office of trust..." (meaning: not bound by the mandatory Article VI fidelity Oath and, therefore, not vested with legitimate "government" powers). All that need be done to "fix" this part of the performance oath would be to have it read: "...I am not the current holder of any office of trust..." Also, the performance oath asserts, "I swear and affirm that I will support the Constitutions of the United States and of this State.". Versus the Article VI mandate, " I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Please note that "swear and affirm" in addition to "Constitutions" are not Article VI compliant language. Lastly, the mandatory Article VI fidelity Oath precedes and supersedes any performance oath such as Rambo's OATH OF JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT which is not an Article VI oath. Page 6 of 8

It is important to understand the following elements surrounding Rambo's oaths because it is the oath which vests judicial officers with legitimate power/authority. It's not the chair they are sitting in, or the uniform or the badge they're wearing, it's their Oath binding them to the Supreme Law of the Land. Article VI - the purpose of which is to impose personal accountability (to We The People) on each and every public official, whether elected, appointed, or contracted (employed) as a condition of initial and ongoing entitlement. No express provision empowers Congress, the States (or anyone else) to create an oath which imposes a manifestly vague obligation to perform an office of public trust "agreeably with" the Supreme Law of the Land, as distinguished from "in accordance with" or "in conformity to" (the Supreme Law of the Land, as it is written). For the reasons outlined herein it should be obvious that Alicia(Lisa) Coogle Rambo is not a signatory to a plainly de jure Article VI Oath of Fidelity. Furthermore, Mrs. Rambo, by way of her actions/in-actions toward the Cross family, demonstrates no desire to support the Constitution. Evidence will show Mrs. Rambo to be hostile to our natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution regarding this instant matter. List of words potentiating as legal fictions and proper nouns within these two oaths: Rambo's oaths are fraught with improper noun construction(improper English) to wit: A. OATH OF JUDGE OF JUVENILE COURT B. STATE OF GEORGIA C. COUNTY OF SUMTER D. LISA C. RAMBO C. JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE COURT D. SO HELP ME GOD! E. JUDGE OF PROBATE COURT F. DIRECTIONS G. SUMTER COUNTY H. LOYALTY OATH Yet these oaths also have proper noun construction to wit: A. State of Georgia B. Constitution of Georgia C. Constitution of the United States D. Judy Reeves E. Lisa C. Rambo Be it that these oaths are overrun by corporate fictions(all caps words/nouns) or that the attorneys writing these oaths despise correct English, such improper English usage necessarily creates confusion all by itself. Lawfully binding documents(oaths especially) are and must be precise. By means of improper English alone, Rambo's oaths are ostensibly a nullity (n. something which may be treated as nothing, as if it did not exist or never happened. ).

Page 7 of 8

Personal Affirmation: Thus Be it known to all men of sound moral fiber by these presents on this____day of the____month, in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand thirteen (as men measure such things), and pursuant to scriptural mandate (Matthew 5: 33-37), that this document is hereby subscribed and solemnly Affirmed on my own name with all honorable intent and without swearing by me, (parent's name redacted), the undersigned. I Affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, remembrance and understanding. I Affirm that I am of lawful adult age and am competent to execute this Instrument. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the Affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights as granted to me by God alone. This Instrument is hereby respectfully subscribed by me, (parent's name redacted) as a free and voluntary act and deed. All Rights and Remedies reserved under the watchful eye and aegis of God Almighty alone (and no other), without prejudice, waiver or surrender: non-assumpsit per idem sonans persona ficta: X.................................................. (parent's name redacted) (in esse) sui juris

Personal Affirmation: Thus Be it known to all men of sound moral fiber by these presents on this____day of the____month, in the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand thirteen (as men measure such things), and pursuant to scriptural mandate (Matthew 5: 33-37), that this document is hereby subscribed and solemnly Affirmed on my own name with all honorable intent and without swearing by me, (parent's name redacted), the undersigned. I Affirm that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, remembrance and understanding. I Affirm that I am of lawful adult age and am competent to execute this Instrument. I hereby affix my own signature to all of the Affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights as granted to me by God alone. This Instrument is hereby respectfully subscribed by me, (parent's name redacted) as a free and voluntary act and deed. All Rights and Remedies reserved under the watchful eye and aegis of God Almighty alone (and no other), without prejudice, waiver or surrender: non-assumpsit per idem sonans persona ficta: X.................................................. Dr. (parent's name redacted) (in esse) sui juris I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby affirm that (parent's name redacted) and (parent's name redacted) personally appeared before me on the ___ day of July and signed the above affidavit of their own volition. ________________________________ Notary Public

Page 8 of 8