There are new allegations surrounding the appointment process of John Luman Smith, also known as “Jack Smith.”
Recent scrutiny has surfaced on the appointment process of Special Counsel Jack Smith. Claims have come to light questioning the validity of his oath of office and the timing of his affidavit compliance.
A concerned reader approached The Gateway Pundit recently, challenging the legitimacy of Smith’s procedural conduct upon his appointment by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland involving his role as Special Counsel.
Critics argue that, unlike other department heads who have the authority to appoint inferior officers, the Attorney General may not have been vested with this power for appointments like that of Jack Smith, who was not Senate-confirmed for his office.
According to official documents, John Lumen Smith was appointed as Special Counsel by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on November 18, 2022, as per Order No. 5559-2022.
This appointment was in response to the need for an independent special counsel to oversee “criminal investigations” related to former President Donald Trump, particularly considering Trump’s third run for the White House in 2024.
Former Ronald Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, along with Professors Gary Lawson and Steven Calabresi, submitted a petition to the Supreme Court last week seeking a writ of certiorari in response to Jack (John Lumen) Smith’s petition to expedite appeal of immunity ruling.
The former US Attorney General contends that Jack Smith, acting as Special Counsel, was not appropriately appointed. Consequently, they argue, all legal actions undertaken by Smith should be considered null and void.
The trio, in their petition to the Supreme Court, argue that since Smith was directly hired by the current Attorney General, Merrick Garland, the constitutional process of presidential nomination and full Senate confirmation was bypassed. They state that Smith’s various legal actions, performed under the guise of law, should only be carried out by individuals who have been duly appointed as federal officers to legitimately established federal offices.
The petition reads in part:
The illegality addressed in this brief started on November 18, 2022, when Attorney General Merrick Garland exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority by purporting to appoint Smith to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice.
…
But none of those statutes, nor any other statutory or constitutional provisions, remotely authorized the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.
What federal statutes and the Constitution do not allow, however, is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title “Special Counsel.”
Now this – A Gateway Pundit reader made fresh and alarming concerns regarding the appointment of Special Counsel John L. Smith (Jack Smith).
Under 5 U.S. Code § 3332, “An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the appointment.”
Any federal position appointee must file an appointment affidavit (SF 61) within 30 days of assuming office. Documentation confirms that Smith signed the initial SF 61 on November 20, 2022. However, due to a missing witness signature, a corrective action was taken to re-administer the oath and execute a new SF 61—which occurred 298 days after the appointment, on September 14, 2023.
From: U.S. Department of Justice/ Justice Management Division/ Human Resources:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Oath of Office, John L. Smith
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This memorandum serves as record that an appointment affidavit (SF 61) has been signed and executed for the appointment of John L. Smith, Special Counsel. On November 18, 2022, John L. Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to serve as the Special Counsel by Order No. 5559-2022.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Smith signed an SF 61 on November 20, 2022. Upon reviewing documentation, it was discovered that a witness signature was missing (more than likely as Mr. Smith was on boarded while overseas). JMD/Human Resources consulted with the JMD/Office of General Counsel (OGC) to ensure proper corrective action. OGC’s recommendation and advice was to readminister the oath of office and execute a new SF 61 to ensure procedural compliance.
Attachments
A. Attorney General Order 5559-2022
B. SF 61, signed and executed on 9/14/2023
C. SF 61, signed on 11/20/2022
And there’s more – It should be noted that on June 8, 2023, Jack Smith issued a grand jury indictment against Trump on federal criminal charges related to his handling of classified documents, and on August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted on additional federal felony counts relating to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his conduct during the Capitol event.
This took place prior to the completion of Mr. Smith’s oath.
It appears that Smith completed signing the “Oath of Office” as mandated by 5 U.S. Code § 3332 only on September 14, 2023. This requirement states that the oath should be filed within 30 days of assuming office, but in this case, it was filed 298 days later due to a missing witness signature.
Although the rectification occurred, the legal conundrum remains about whether actions taken prior to this date may be legally challenged.
The procedural misstep could potentially cast more doubt over the validity of Mr. Smith’s official actions, including the high-profile indictment against former President Trump. The oversight opens the possibility for jurisdictional challenges, questioning the authority under which Mr. Smith operated during the period between his appointment and the signing of the corrected appointment affidavit in September 2023.
Failure to take the oath is generally considered a failure to complete the appointment process, rendering the person’s actions as an officer potentially invalid.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that Mr. Smith may have filed the indictment using the name “Jack Smith,” a deviation from his admitted legal name “John Luman Smith.”
Under New York Law, practicing law under a name differing from that under which one was admitted, without formal approval for a name change from the Appellate Division, is prohibited.
The Gateway Pundit has sought insight from legal experts on both the discrepancy in names and the delayed oath.
Regarding the name discrepancy, one lawyer opined, “Since John/Jack are related names I’d expect them to punt on this. Or allow him to remedy/cure quickly… The court will interpret Jack as a form of John and say where’s the harm? He’s signing for himself.”
However, on the oath of office matter, the same legal expert posited, “A court should take it seriously. They might dismiss it as ceremonial. But it’s a solid argument.”
This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit
