The hearing “judge” refused to provide evidence of her Oath of Office and its proper filing and she also usurped jurisdiction according to Clark in the post hearing conference. According to Clark, a judge that fails to prove jurisdiction upon request waives any right to immunity.
No supporting logic is provided and again, Clark seems to be making assertions of law, while failing to be able to convince the courts. The judge explicitly rejected this claim. When will Clark learn that ‘saying it’ does not ‘make it so’.
I find it fascinating that Clark files the writ of prohibition and then argues that the court lacks jurisdiction. Fascinating internal contradiction.
However, it is clear that the Judge is at a minimum a de-facto judge.