Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22-04-2011, 09:56 AM   #1
vajradhatu
Member
 
vajradhatu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Heart
Posts: 71
Default The Judicial Oath - A Red Herring?

Hello friends,

Recently I have been having some thoughts about our approach towards Court, particularly after the events at Birkenhead and the questions that Michael raised. I found the questions he asked difficult, not least because I did not, and still do not, have any easy answers. I am still not convinced that the action at Birkenhead observed due process of law, and I still maintain that an unlawful action cannot be called a success under any circumstances. I am aware that not everyone will concur with that assessment.

One thing in particular has come up for me and that is the question of the judicial oath, the form of which can be found here. In videos, books and texts from Freemen all over the world heavy emphasis is placed upon the validity or otherwise of the judicial oath. Obviously it is important that anyone who presumes to sit in judgment over us does so with impartiality. However, it is my opinion that our approach to this subject is erroneous, leading us away from justice and helping injustices to take place.

Let us look at the situation. We go into court and virtually the first thing we do when the judge enters is to ask him if he is acting under his oath of office. We get a right bee in our bonnet when the judge refuses to answer such questions. We then go on to assume that the individual in question is impersonating a judge and/or acting fraudulently. We become insistent, demanding the judge produce his oath, which is patently ludicrous.

It is ridiculous to think a judge should carry his oath with him whenever he is acting as a judge. Do we require the same of police officers? Or members of the armed forces? Or doctors? Of course not.

The judicial oath can be found in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. Section 1(7), Penalty on not taking required oath, which you can find here, says this:
Quote:
If any officer specified in the schedule hereto [F1or any member of the Scottish Executive]declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act [F2or section 84(4) of the Scotland Act 1998] is duly tendered, to take such oath, he shall, if he has already entered on his office, vacate the same, and if he has not entered on the same be disqualified from entering on the same; but no person shall be compelled, in respect of the same appointment to the same office, to take such oath . . . F3more times than one.
It says quite clearly that no one who takes an oath is required to take it more than once. The judge is under no obligation to recite his oath to us in order to satisfy our suspicions. One final thing we occasionally ask is for the judge to confirm he is acting under his oath. It seems to me that this is an act of dishonour. To assume, without any supporting evidence, that a judge intends to defraud us by exercising his right to silence is, to my mind, dishonourable.

Our approach to the judicial oath is entirely wrong in my opinion. It is aggressive, not founded in fact, has no basis in law and detracts from the real issues in law and fact that are pertinent to the proceedings. I think the approach we have taken with the judicial oath is a red herring that is leading us down the wrong path.

Those of you who know me will know that in certain respects I am a fairly practical individual. In my observations of what happens in Court, and I have observed a fair few proceedings now, not once have I seen our approach to the judicial oath result in anything resembling a success. All I have ever seen it do is make things more difficult for the litigant to make any progress. In immediately attacking the judge we are alienating the very individual we want to be sympathetic to our cause. How can we expect anyone to be impartial if the first thing we do is to launch an attack on his ego? It doesn't make any sense.

When first came across FMOTL I watched some videos by The AntiTerrorist, who I'm sure you're all aware of. In his video on Standing in Court, he says of the judicial oath that he would say “this Court takes judicial notice of your honour's oath of office”. The quote is probably not verbatim, but it's close enough for our purposes. The key phrase here is 'judicial notice'. Bouvier's does not appear to define judicial notice. Black's 9th Edition says this:
Quote:
judicial notice.(17c) A court's acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party's proof, of a well known and indisputable fact; the court's power to accept such a fact <the trial took judicial notice of the fact that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit>. - Also termed judicial cognizance; judicial knowledge. See judicially noticed fact under FACT
It seems to me that a much better approach to the judicial oath is to take judicial notice of it. This is a much less combative approach. Rather than coming from a position of suspicion and dishonour, we are coming from a position of trust and honour.

While I have never seen a success result from dishonouring a judge, I have seen a successful result arise from the litigant noting the oath but not making an issue out of it. Furthermore, I have heard anecdotal evidence from a proceeding I was not a party to that a judge responded well to having the judicial oath noted. Judges, like everyone else, are prone to emotional states of mind. Like everyone else, they will robably tend to react with anger if their honour is questioned, and tend to be more amenable if it is assumed they are being honourable

In my opinion we need to radically change the way we approach the oath. We need to take judicial notice of it as something so self evident that no proof of its existence is required. That way, we do not antagonise the judge and we do not immediately get into an aggressive mindset, which will affect our ability to engage with the proceedings in a calm and collected manner. If, and this is a pretty big if, the judge acts in a fashion that breaches his oath of office we should note it and move on. If need be, the judicial decisions of the judge can form the basis of an appeal or a judicial review at a later point in time.

I am aware that I am challenging a tenet of FMOTL that is close to a lot of people's hearts. My intention in this is not to cause controversy, but to allow us to get the remedies we seek in Court in a way that is beneficial for all affected parties.

Best wishes
Vajradhatu
__________________
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Last edited by vajradhatu; 22-04-2011 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Those pesky typos.
vajradhatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 10:22 AM   #2
thoreau
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,550
Default

I think you make a very good point and argue your point well.

I tend to agree with a lot of points you raise.
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 10:52 AM   #3
yozhik
Senior Member
 
yozhik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,412
Default

It's not about retaking the oath, or reciting it in court.
The question is; "are you operating under your oath?".
In other words, are you here today in your capacity as an officer of the office to which the oath is annexed?

To help clarify the distinction, a Policy Enforcer - as you point out - has an oath.
When said Policy Officer is not 'on duty', is he operating under the oath annexed to that office?
No.

When out of the 'office', he is 'off duty', and not bound to the oath.

So back to the 'court' ... when the person presumed to be the 'judge' is sitting, does he do so 'on duty' or 'off duty'?
Is he/she operating under the oath of office?
Or, is he/she merely presiding over a hearing, as an impartial witness, appointed by both parties to hear arguments and then render an 'out of office' opinion, as a witness?

I can listen to a debate amongst mates, and then they could ask me for my unbiased opinion. Is it presumed I am under oath to do so?
Should they both appoint me as a witness AND also agree, formally, to be bound by my opinion as a witness; does that change the environment?
If papers are drawn up to such effect; could it be enforced?
It probably could, if it formed a 'legal contract'.

That's the point being made with the judge and the oath.

Not demanding he bring it in to the court, nor that he recite it.
Simply that he make a public declaration as to whether he is operating in the official office to which the oath is annexed. Or is he operating 'off duty' and merely a witness to a debate?
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 11:08 AM   #4
yozhik
Senior Member
 
yozhik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,412
Default

On the subject of oaths, which is an interesting one, the issue of Kol Nidre may surprise a few;

The cantor then chants the passage beginning with the words Kol Nidrei in varying intensities; from pianissimo (quiet) to fortissimo (loud), repeats twice (for a total of three iterations) the following words (Nusach Ashkenaz):

"All personal vows we are likely to make,
all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take
between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur,
we publicly renounce.

Let them all be relinquished and abandoned,
null and void, neither firm nor established.

Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths
be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."


Not sure about you, but when coming face to face with anyone in an office, operating under the presumed authority of an oath annexed to that office ... I'd sure as heck want to know if the oath was genuine, or had been made null and void by the existence of the immunity offered by Kol Nidre!
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 22-04-2011 at 11:09 AM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 11:09 AM   #5
death
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Default

The only thing patently wrong is your mass of paragraphs. I honestly think you should avoid this movement and stick to paying lawyers and court fees.
First of all, the first thing we do is not rise for the judge while we wait in the public gallery. Secondly, and equally as important, we never enter the court as that grants jurisdiction!

So I immediately must ask you, why are you even here?
Your motives seem extremely suspect and your logic obviously illogical under the principle of attaining a respected position of sovereignty that these corporations are aware of and familiar with.

You are asking for them to recite the oath as it creates liability if they do not know it. You are asking them if they are under oath for the same reason.
Also, how else do you know if you are in the presence of a judge, a justice of the peace or merely some person that is administrating litigation on their own time.
You are asking if he/she is acting under oath, not to retake the oath.
If he/she is not acting under oath, you are in a kangaroo court.
A de facto court. If you are appearing before a justice of the peace, you are dealing with someone even more ignorant in law than your typical judge or attorney. You challenge jurisdiction, motivation and intent of the court. You are there with liability and everyone in the room knows it. Why should the judge sit there with the assumption that you are ignorant and that is the source of their immunity and authority.

Your post quite literally disgusts me. You suggest we stand there bare ass naked while the judge parades around in the golden fleece! Are you even an American? Do you not understand the importance of jurisdiction and on what authority the judge is acting, if any at all?

Sorry but I do not feel you have any place in this movement what so ever.
Under Article 61, a Freeman on the Land is making a declaration of peaceful rebellion. Without conflict, there can be no rebellion now can there. Your ideology of honoring the court can serve as proof of claim that you granted jurisdiction! Calling the judge sir/ma'am, your honor etc will actually suffice as granting authority. It means you consent to this person serving as the judge in this fictitious courtship.
If the just is not acting under the oath of office, they are acting as a contractual litigation supervisor who's decisions you have agreed to be bound to.

Please, know a thing or two before you make such absurd proclamations in advisement to others.

Last edited by death; 22-04-2011 at 11:17 AM.
death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 11:26 AM   #6
thoreau
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by death View Post
The only thing patently wrong is your mass of paragraphs. I honestly think you should avoid this movement and stick to paying lawyers and court fees.
First of all, the first thing we do is not rise for the judge while we wait in the public gallery. Secondly, and equally as important, we never enter the court as that grants jurisdiction!

So I immediately must ask you, why are you even here?
Your motives seem extremely suspect and your logic obviously illogical under the principle of attaining a respected position of sovereignty that these corporations are aware of and familiar with.

You are asking for them to recite the oath as it creates liability if they do not know it. You are asking them if they are under oath for the same reason.
Also, how else do you know if you are in the presence of a judge, a justice of the peace or merely some person that is administrating litigation on their own time.
You are asking if he/she is acting under oath, not to retake the oath.
If he/she is not acting under oath, you are in a kangaroo court.
A de facto court. If you are appearing before a justice of the peace, you are dealing with someone even more ignorant in law than your typical judge or attorney. You challenge jurisdiction, motivation and intent of the court. You are there with liability and everyone in the room knows it. Why should the judge sit there with the assumption that you are ignorant and that is the source of their immunity and authority.

Your post quite literally disgusts me. You suggest we stand there bare ass naked while the judge parades around in the golden fleece! Are you even an American? Do you not understand the importance of jurisdiction and on what authority the judge is acting, if any at all?

Sorry but I do not feel you have any place in this movement what so ever.
Under Article 61, a Freeman on the Land is making a declaration of peaceful rebellion. Without conflict, there can be no rebellion now can there. Your ideology of honoring the court can serve as proof of claim that you granted jurisdiction! Calling the judge sir/ma'am, your honor etc will actually suffice as granting authority. It means you consent to this person serving as the judge in this fictitious courtship.
If the just is not acting under the oath of office, they are acting as a contractual litigation supervisor who's decisions you have agreed to be bound to.

Please, know a thing or two before you make such absurd proclamations in advisement to others.
Article 61 gave barons right to choose 25 barons to keep an eye on the king and check whether or not he was sticking to the magna carta - it goes on to say that if the king doesnt stick to the charter those barons could seize lands from the king. It also said that anyone could swear an oath to the barons and help them carry out what was necessary if the king didnt stick to the charter.

So my question is this - who are the 25 barons?
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 12:44 PM   #7
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoreau View Post
Article 61 gave barons right to choose 25 barons to keep an eye on the king and check whether or not he was sticking to the magna carta - it goes on to say that if the king doesnt stick to the charter those barons could seize lands from the king. It also said that anyone could swear an oath to the barons and help them carry out what was necessary if the king didnt stick to the charter.

So my question is this - who are the 25 barons?

There aren't any. That provision was repealed a very long time ago.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 12:51 PM   #8
thoreau
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
There aren't any. That provision was repealed a very long time ago.
indeed it was however as that doesnt seem to deter some from claiming it is in force so am asking on their 'terms' as it were. i shouldnt bother in all truth as I wont get an answer or if I do it wont address the question directly but I live in hope...
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2011, 09:07 PM   #9
yozhik
Senior Member
 
yozhik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
There aren't any. That provision was repealed a very long time ago.
You'd be referring to the codified version?
i.e the copy of the Charter, copied in to the statute books, but not the Charter itself?

Magna Carta was not originally a statute.
The original is not subject to repeal.

The mimic that was derived of the MC is a statute.
Parts [most] of this clone have been repealed.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2011, 10:19 AM   #10
vajradhatu
Member
 
vajradhatu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Heart
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
It's not about retaking the oath, or reciting it in court.
The question is; "are you operating under your oath?".
In other words, are you here today in your capacity as an officer of the office to which the oath is annexed?
I have heard litigants in person demand the judge produce his oath, ie, the written oath, and that he confirm his oath by reciting it.

I am not suggesting that we ignore the oath, just that the way we approach it is erroneous. Have you ever seen the approach used by Freemen result in anything approaching a success? I have not.

What I am suggesting is that rather than asking the judge to confirm his judicial oath, we put him on his oath, either by accepting it or by making the Court take judicial notice of it.

If you can provide evidence of a single case where asking the judge to confirm he is acting under oath has resulted in a success, I would be most interested in seeing it. I ask not in the fashion of a troll, but as a Sovereign who would be genuinely interested in such a result.
__________________
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
vajradhatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2011, 03:29 PM   #11
thoreau
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,550
Default

What is of interest to me here is that if you merely acknowledged that the judge is under oath so there wasnt the walking out of court and stopping of procedings and actually got to the part where the judge makes a decision. Based on the evidence.

Could you not then if the judge has not acted in compliance with his/her oath appeal citing that as one of the reasons for appeal?
thoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2011, 04:00 PM   #12
death
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vajradhatu View Post
I have heard litigants in person demand the judge produce his oath, ie, the written oath, and that he confirm his oath by reciting it.

I am not suggesting that we ignore the oath, just that the way we approach it is erroneous. Have you ever seen the approach used by Freemen result in anything approaching a success? I have not.

What I am suggesting is that rather than asking the judge to confirm his judicial oath, we put him on his oath, either by accepting it or by making the Court take judicial notice of it.

If you can provide evidence of a single case where asking the judge to confirm he is acting under oath has resulted in a success, I would be most interested in seeing it. I ask not in the fashion of a troll, but as a Sovereign who would be genuinely interested in such a result.
Plenty of examples of this.
I am well aware Article 61 is defunct but it is irrelevant in terms of the methodology still being very effective.

Look up Raymond St. Claire and really, just search for youtube videos of freemen in court. Some fail but plenty succeed. Your belief that you should have a rebellion that trusts the courts is absolutely absurd. Even though it is peaceful rebellion, without conflict there is no rebellion. You can not change anything about the system by taking part in it. You can not purify dirty water no matter how much clean water you add to it.
So as I said, feel free to trust the judge, prosecutor, clerks etc and feel free to pay lawyers and do your time because that is exactly what that trust will get you.

The truth is, you should show us an example of trusting the system that works. The accused walks away not merely unscathed but without being screwed out of a small fortune.
Then we will compare
death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2011, 04:09 PM   #13
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by death View Post
just search for youtube videos of freemen in court. Some fail but plenty succeed.
I have yet to see one verifiable example of a fotl succeding in court.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 01:34 AM   #14
miked
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In my body
Posts: 130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
I have yet to see one verifiable example of a fotl succeding in court.

I had a big case at Preston Crown Court a couple of weeks ago and had the indictment quashed by the most senior judge at that court, I didnt even have to ask!! The reason was that HMCS had denied me the right of due process at the committal hearing. Basically, because I was in there as a man and not a person the court totally lost its cool, had me arrested for contempt, carried on with no one in court and then let me go!! Now, I didnt go in as a 'FMOTL', as you put it, but lets put it this way

I aint no bodys bitch!!!
miked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 02:10 AM   #15
moobs
Senior Member
 
moobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miked View Post
I had a big case at Preston Crown Court a couple of weeks ago and had the indictment quashed by the most senior judge at that court, I didnt even have to ask!! The reason was that HMCS had denied me the right of due process at the committal hearing. Basically, because I was in there as a man and not a person the court totally lost its cool, had me arrested for contempt, carried on with no one in court and then let me go!! Now, I didnt go in as a 'FMOTL', as you put it, but lets put it this way

I aint no bodys bitch!!!
Ah, yes. Dubious anecdotes. If that's not ironclad proof, I don't know what is.
moobs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 08:11 AM   #16
vajradhatu
Member
 
vajradhatu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Heart
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoreau View Post
What is of interest to me here is that if you merely acknowledged that the judge is under oath so there wasnt the walking out of court and stopping of procedings and actually got to the part where the judge makes a decision. Based on the evidence.

Could you not then if the judge has not acted in compliance with his/her oath appeal citing that as one of the reasons for appeal?
Yes. In the UK at least, this is the only way to 'complain' about the judicial decisions taken by a judge, although one could apply for a judicial review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by death View Post
Look up Raymond St. Claire
I am aware of the video to which you refer. If I were to be honest, I would be compelled to confess that I view the video put out by Ray St Claire as a piece of disinformation that has caused more harm than good. In saying that the video to which you refer is disinformation I am not seeking to suggest that this was intentional - ie, I am not suggesting Ray St Claire acted in bad faith, just that the information he put out is erroneous.

Quote:
Your belief that you should have a rebellion that trusts the courts is absolutely absurd. Even though it is peaceful rebellion, without conflict there is no rebellion. You can not change anything about the system by taking part in it. You can not purify dirty water no matter how much clean water you add to it.
With all due respect, I do not concur with your assessment. I do not agree that the Courts are endemically corrupt. Furthermore, I do not agree that it is absurd to have trust in the Universe, no matter how the Universe manifests. Indeed, I would suggest that it is absurd to have anything but trust in the Universe, and just so we're clear - the Court system is part of the Universe.

I have trust in the basic goodness of all human beings; we are all intrinsically pure, each and every one of us. My view is that we act as mirrors for each other. If we project mistrust and suspicion then that is what we can expect to see reflected in others. Whereas if we project wisdom and compassion then that is what we can expect to see reflected in others. I suppose it's worth pointing out that I am a Buddhist and my views are necessarily going to be coloured by the teachings of that tradition.

Once again I would like to reiterate, I am not in rebellion, lawful or otherwise. I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. My understanding is that the two are quite different. I have no interest in conflict and try to avoid it at all costs. I do not support any action that involves the use of force or violence. Neither do I support any action that is unlawful or fraudulent, as far as I understand those terms.

I disagree that one cannot change the system by engaging with it. To take your water analogy (which I rather liked) whilst one cannot purify impure water with the addition of pure water, one could conceivably do so with the addition of a catalyst.

Quote:
The truth is, you should show us an example of trusting the system that works. The accused walks away not merely unscathed but without being screwed out of a small fortune.
I am afraid the only evidence I have is anecdotal. Last year I was at Court in the capacity of administrative assistant with a friend who was up for committal proceeding for contempt of court and was looking at 21 days in prison. He accepted the oath by saying something like "I accept your oath of office with all the benefits and protections it provides". The judge in that instance ended up making the litigant's submissions for him against the prosecuting barrister. He made reference to that fact during the proceedings saying something like "I see you are leaving me to make your submissions for you, which is probably the wisest course of action". The litigant walked out of Court a free man.

This same individual went to Court in Sheffield to support someone else in a Mortgage case, one at which I was not present. That person accepted the judge's oath and the judge thanked him! That case is still ongoing, but my understanding after having spoken with both my friend, and the litigant in Sheffield, is that the judge in that case is being extremely helpful.
__________________
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
vajradhatu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 10:58 AM   #17
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vajradhatu View Post
Hello friends,

Recently I have been having some thoughts about our approach towards Court, particularly after the events at Birkenhead and the questions that Michael raised. I found the questions he asked difficult, not least because I did not, and still do not, have any easy answers. I am still not convinced that the action at Birkenhead observed due process of law, and I still maintain that an unlawful action cannot be called a success under any circumstances. I am aware that not everyone will concur with that assessment.

One thing in particular has come up for me and that is the question of the judicial oath, the form of which can be found here. In videos, books and texts from Freemen all over the world heavy emphasis is placed upon the validity or otherwise of the judicial oath. Obviously it is important that anyone who presumes to sit in judgment over us does so with impartiality. However, it is my opinion that our approach to this subject is erroneous, leading us away from justice and helping injustices to take place.

Let us look at the situation. We go into court and virtually the first thing we do when the judge enters is to ask him if he is acting under his oath of office. We get a right bee in our bonnet when the judge refuses to answer such questions. We then go on to assume that the individual in question is impersonating a judge and/or acting fraudulently. We become insistent, demanding the judge produce his oath, which is patently ludicrous.

It is ridiculous to think a judge should carry his oath with him whenever he is acting as a judge. Do we require the same of police officers? Or members of the armed forces? Or doctors? Of course not.

The judicial oath can be found in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. Section 1(7), Penalty on not taking required oath, which you can find here, says this:


It says quite clearly that no one who takes an oath is required to take it more than once. The judge is under no obligation to recite his oath to us in order to satisfy our suspicions. One final thing we occasionally ask is for the judge to confirm he is acting under his oath. It seems to me that this is an act of dishonour. To assume, without any supporting evidence, that a judge intends to defraud us by exercising his right to silence is, to my mind, dishonourable.

Our approach to the judicial oath is entirely wrong in my opinion. It is aggressive, not founded in fact, has no basis in law and detracts from the real issues in law and fact that are pertinent to the proceedings. I think the approach we have taken with the judicial oath is a red herring that is leading us down the wrong path.

Those of you who know me will know that in certain respects I am a fairly practical individual. In my observations of what happens in Court, and I have observed a fair few proceedings now, not once have I seen our approach to the judicial oath result in anything resembling a success. All I have ever seen it do is make things more difficult for the litigant to make any progress. In immediately attacking the judge we are alienating the very individual we want to be sympathetic to our cause. How can we expect anyone to be impartial if the first thing we do is to launch an attack on his ego? It doesn't make any sense.

When first came across FMOTL I watched some videos by The AntiTerrorist, who I'm sure you're all aware of. In his video on Standing in Court, he says of the judicial oath that he would say “this Court takes judicial notice of your honour's oath of office”. The quote is probably not verbatim, but it's close enough for our purposes. The key phrase here is 'judicial notice'. Bouvier's does not appear to define judicial notice. Black's 9th Edition says this:


It seems to me that a much better approach to the judicial oath is to take judicial notice of it. This is a much less combative approach. Rather than coming from a position of suspicion and dishonour, we are coming from a position of trust and honour.

While I have never seen a success result from dishonouring a judge, I have seen a successful result arise from the litigant noting the oath but not making an issue out of it. Furthermore, I have heard anecdotal evidence from a proceeding I was not a party to that a judge responded well to having the judicial oath noted. Judges, like everyone else, are prone to emotional states of mind. Like everyone else, they will robably tend to react with anger if their honour is questioned, and tend to be more amenable if it is assumed they are being honourable

In my opinion we need to radically change the way we approach the oath. We need to take judicial notice of it as something so self evident that no proof of its existence is required. That way, we do not antagonise the judge and we do not immediately get into an aggressive mindset, which will affect our ability to engage with the proceedings in a calm and collected manner. If, and this is a pretty big if, the judge acts in a fashion that breaches his oath of office we should note it and move on. If need be, the judicial decisions of the judge can form the basis of an appeal or a judicial review at a later point in time.

I am aware that I am challenging a tenet of FMOTL that is close to a lot of people's hearts. My intention in this is not to cause controversy, but to allow us to get the remedies we seek in Court in a way that is beneficial for all affected parties.

Best wishes
Vajradhatu

How about a judge when asked says he HAS taken the oath.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 11:02 AM   #18
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,592
Default

Yozhik said:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole
There aren't any. That provision was repealed a very long time ago.

You'd be referring to the codified version?
i.e the copy of the Charter, copied in to the statute books, but not the Charter itself?

Magna Carta was not originally a statute.
The original is not subject to repeal.

The mimic that was derived of the MC is a statute.
Parts [most] of this clone have been repealed.
So a piece of fakery has parts of it repealed but the original document cannot be repealed so stands in law.
__________________
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn’t learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn’t learn a little, at least we didn’t get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn’t die; so, let us all be thankful.” - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 11:27 AM   #19
davoid
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vajradhatu View Post
What I am suggesting is that rather than asking the judge to confirm his judicial oath, we put him on his oath, either by accepting it or by making the Court take judicial notice of it.
I think this would be useful. Even more so would be to hear the judge recite his oath. Why shouldn't he? If he claims to abide by it, he should be proud to reinforce that oath in public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark1963 View Post
How about a judge when asked says he HAS taken the oath.
I think the good thing about making him recite the oath again is that it is probably not in the forefront of his thoughts that he should be upholding his oath. If he can't remember his oath, he can hardly be abiding by its tenets, can he. Reminding him of what he stands for would be good for him, and make him more aware of when he might be transgressing his professional principles.
davoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2011, 12:01 PM   #20
moobs
Senior Member
 
moobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,555
Default

What part of the judge's oath would support a freeman's position in court? Also, I'm fairly sure that judges are required to obey their oaths at all times while they preside over cases. I don't think there's really any significance in asking the judge if he has an oath, or "putting him on his oath". If there was, that would imply that judges don't have to obey their oaths unless the defendant specifically asks them to. And that's not really compatible with the definition of the word "oath", is it?
moobs is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM.