Page 1 of 1

Saturday, 20th November 2010

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:46 pm
by Veronica
The "Oath" Business

I get asked: "Yes … but what happens if they change their Oath - so as to make it valid for them to claim jurisdiction?"


What does 'valid' mean?

Only if it means 'LAWFUL' would it be 'valid'.

And how could it be LAWFUL to claim jurisdiction over Human Beings … other than under the Common Law … the Law-of-the-Land? The Jury of 12. WITHOUT CONSENT?

So … let's suppose … they change their Oath … such that they will happily repeat it … and thereby claim jurisdiction to proceed.

Then what?

You gonna stand for that?????

Or would you say (as I would): "That's an Oath all right. But it doesn't do the trick. It simply means that - if you act under it - you have declared you are UNTRUSTWORTHY in my eyes. As two Human Beings - you and I - YOU need MY CONSENT - before I let you arbitrate any matter in which I am involved. Based on THAT OATH, you certainly DO NOT have my CONSENT … and never would. I would only accept an Oath commensurate with the Law-of-the-Land. Good day"

I think that answers the question, in that eventuality.

(Think. Please think. Asking questions is fine ... but it is a good idea to THINK first of all ... otherwise you simply clog up the works ... which is counter-productive)

Any Oath (wording) that would enable them to claim UNILATERAL Domain over YOUR SOVEREIGNTY would HAVE TO BE BLATANTLY DISHONOURABLE and OBVIOUS - by definition.

Re: Saturday, 20th November 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:52 pm
by Veronica
Let's take an example:

Judge's Oath

“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

A trick would be to change "people" to "persons".

And we would all know what THAT meant ... would we not?

Blatant ... as I said.

BTW: Statutory Declarations Act 1835, Section 7:

Oaths in courts of justice, &c. still to be taken.

7. Provided also, that nothing in this Act contained shall extend or apply to any oath, solemn affirmation, or affidavit, which now is or hereafter may be made or taken, or be required to be made or taken, in any judicial proceeding in any court of justice, or in any proceeding for or by way of summary conviction before any justice or justices of the peace; but all such oaths, affirmations, and affidavits shall continue to be required, and to be administered, taken, and made, as well and in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.

This seems to be saying that the Statutory Declarations Act has no effect on an Oath. It doesn't declare that whoever MUST or MUST NOT repeat their Oath. Consequently, should someone DEMAND their Oath, then they couldn't hide behind this Act to protect themselves from stating it (upon request).

In simplest terms: When the so-called Judge says "He doen't need to state it", this Act certainly DOES NOT support him ... and therefore a request seems perfectly reasonable. (UNLESS THE SO-CALLED JUDGE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE???????)

And I also read it this way: The Statutory Declarations Act is a Statute. A "legal". Written in the days when the Common Law was still, fundamentally, 'understood' (not as blatantly suppressed as it is today). And this could very well be the reason why this Statute is worded that way i.e. it is NOT trying to outsmart The Common Law ... and is actually saying so. Unless, of course, there is a prior Act which actually determines the Oaths of Justices & Justices of the Peace. And that this Act was not trying to 'outsmart' some previous Act.

But then ... in that latter case (i.e. some previous Act) ... we have a problem. The problem is that the whole thing was set into tablets of stone by the Magna Carta 1215. EIGHTY YEARS before any recognised 'Parliament' (capable of creating Acts) emerged. And the MC says that NOTHING CAN EVER OUTWEIGH IT. So ANY Act that has been passed - which might deviate from what was set in stone in 1215 ... is NULL & VOID IN LAW.

So the Statutory Declarations Act as above, by admitting that it does not supersede what has gone before ... is not voiding itself, but is bowing to the MC & Common Law, etc.

That's the way I read it.