Further authorities have come to my attention with regard to the conduct of a judge. The authorities listed on Veronica’s site here http://contempt.fmotl.com/ come from Archbolds no less.
“The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court” – Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. 
So what’s the only way to find out before hand of a judges intention to meet these requirements?
And if he refuses?
Refusal is a calculated obstruction and so, a contempt of court, a broken oath and, a broken contract.
As mentioned below, a judge does not carry an oath and he does not have to repeat the oath that he took.
The reference below should make this clear:
7 Penalty on not taking required oath.E+W+S+N.I.
If any officer specified in the schedule hereto [F6or any member of the Scottish Executive]declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act [F7or 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 . . . F8more times than one.
… though I don’t see the problem with asking him to confirm his intention to abide by his oath. Surely an honest judge would have no problem with that?
“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. ”
Anyone that’s been around lawful rebellion sites will have come across accounts of people attending court for one reason or another and asking/demanding the judge to “produce your oath”.
Why? Do these people have a screw loose? Are they just repeating “freeman” dogma? “Oh I heard thats what you have to say and the judge has to produce it or else … blah, blah, blahhhhh”
What a load of old cock!
And it just goes to show how little a lot of people understand about thinking for themselves and probably more importantly how to interpret what they learn using common sense.
How does one “produce your oath”?
Is your oath a physical object?
Does one carry an oath in ones wallet?
Maybe some carry theirs wrapped in a fine silk handkerchief to be whipped out on request?
STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID
Did I mention that I think it’s stupid? :)
I’ll explain exactly what is being requesting and why, and “a” correct way to put the question that leaves no question as to the integrity of the judge.
The reason for asking a judge for confirmation that he considers himself still bound by his oath of office is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity that that stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing. Remember, this stranger that holds enough power over you and has the potential to disrupt your life and your remove your liberties.
That’s it, plain and simple.
“Am I going to be treated in the prescribed manner by you and, am I getting access to the law that I’m entitled to by my having given up some natural freedoms?”
To understand why this important you must first understand what you probably haven’t been taught about society and laws and agreements.
In our natural state there are no laws and no rights and as such each and every one of us has the ability to do and act in absolutely any way that we wish. This is all well and good until (taking it to the extreme) some big hairy arse comes along with his mates and does as he wishes and enslaves you or kills you.
So in the past, agreements were made, set in Law and enforced that curb our natural right to do SOME THINGS as we wish. This leaves us to enjoy our individual lives while exercising our remaining unaltered absolute right to live it by doing as we naturally see fit.
I quote William Blackstone … again.
The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Once these Laws are made it’s the job of the judge listen to and make judgements when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such importance. (There’s another reason for that importance (to society) that doesn’t really fit in here so I’ll explain in another post.)
In an ideal world no one would even dream of questioning a judges integrity. It would go without saying that if that man or woman took a solemn oath to perform and act in a certain way, there would be no way on Earth that that solemn vow would be welched on or forgotten when suited. Men and women who are honest develop a reputation for that honesty and so there is very little if any natural motivation to question that honesty.
Are we living in an “ideal” world?
We ALL know the answer to that, the proof of with being that I have written these words and you are reading them.
So the opposite of ideal is …?
Do we have to just accept that?
Do we want the opposite of ideal?
Do we have the choice to make the choice to choose the opposite of ideal?
Do we have to “just put up with” the hypocrisy and “just accept” when people in positions of power aren’t honest, trustworthy or are lacking in integrity? We, the people that it affects negatively should “just accept” their failure to develop good professional habits and, we should continue to justify our acceptance of their failures with a pathetic “oh well, there’s nothing we can do it”?
There are guidelines that judges must follow. Why guidelines? If you’ve read these guidelines (pdf) you’ll notice that essentially, all they contain are the easy stuff to comply with (the stuff we teach children!), honesty, fairness, integrity, impartiality etc. Surely someone in such a responsible position and, with so much power as to be able to completely change the life of another, would be of such unquestionable character that there wouldn’t be any need for a guide that says its a good idea to be “fair” and “honest” and “impartial” etc?
To be fair, I will also argue that there are judges that won’t need to know what the guide contains because they naturally possess the qualities that the guide impresses, though, it isn’t these judges that concern the subject of this post.
However there are those for whom the guide is written, those that don’t naturally possess those desirable qualities. It is THESE JUDGES that are the focus of attention in the courts. And it’s THESE JUDGES that are being singled out and asked if they intend to perform in accordance with their oath. For him to confirm that it is his intention gives people confidence in this complete stranger to act fairly, honestly and with integrity and to be TOTALLY IMPARTIAL. This is a NORMAL request for someone to ask in a situation as alien to him as this and with being judged on his behaviour.
What does it imply if a judge refuses confirm his being bound by his oath?
It could mean a number of things, but what concerns us most is that it doesn’t foster confidence in that judge to act as professional as one would expect and so there is no trust in that judges judicial abilities and integrity.
Some Judge’s have been found to be lacking in the honesty, fairness and integrity part of the requirement demanded by their “noble” profession. It’s these judges that appear to have abandoned their oath and it’s these judges that are being asked “are you still bound by the principles of your oath?” with the intention of getting a positive answer.
You will ALWAYS get a positive answer from an honest judge, how could you not?!
So then, how to ascertain if the judge is worthy of his highly paid post?
On FIRST being asked to speak, reply (along the lines of):
“that you will speak on the STRICT UNDERSTANDING that you [name of judge] are as bound by your oath of office here and now as the day you first made it.”.
You then ask him to confirm or deny by, following up STRAIGHT AWAY with:
“May I continue? …”.
“May I continue” is important. To “continue”, the court understands that you’re ONLY doing so on the STRICT UNDERSTANDING that the judge is as good as his word and is lawfully bound to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”, and … he HAS NO CHOICE but to confirm this BEFORE you continue.
Hey presto … a judge in front of witnesses admitting to acting according to his sworn oath.
Should he be difficult then you just repeat your statement ending with “may I continue?”.
For him to refuse to confirm his intention of honesty by implication suggests that, he will in fact not be honest and it isn’t possible for true justice to be done by a less than honest judge.
But MORE IMPORTANTLY than that, it also implies that, AS YOU ARE NOT GETTING EQUAL ACCESS TO THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW, YOU ARE NO LONGER BEHOLDEN TO THAT BODY OF LAW … (see my next post!).
So please, understand what you’ve just learned and stop asking judges to “produce their oaths”. 8-)