The Reason Why and, How To Confirm a Judges INTENTION to Act Under His Oath … Or Not!

Further authorities have come to my attention with regard to the conduct of a judge. The authorities listed on Veronica’s site here 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. [1974]

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.

Small update:
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?


Judicial 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. ”

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?



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.



So please, understand what you’ve just learned and stop asking judges to “produce their oaths”. 😎


17 thoughts on “The Reason Why and, How To Confirm a Judges INTENTION to Act Under His Oath … Or Not!

  1. If the census forms are addressed to the occupier being no such legal entity as such why should we open them same with all other mail not addessed to us!

  2. Oaths: BE VERY CAREFUL!
    Don’t be fobbed off!
    Asking a Judge or Magistrate to “produce their Oath” is utterly stupid (as you say).

    Asking a Judge or Magistrate “If they have taken an Oath” is absurd … of course they have!

    Asking the Courts Service “If Judges and Magistrates take Oaths” is absurd … of course they do …
    … to say: “Of course they do!” is one of the major ways they like to use in order to fob you off … because these are NOT the questions.


    VERY SIMPLY BECAUSE – IF THEY WERE – THEY COULD -NEVER- DO WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO … namely to ‘find in favour’ of a mindless, soulless, corrupt (e.g. Social Services), compassionless, incompetent-often-to-the-point-of-imbecilic (e.g. Department of Work and Pensions, Department of the Environment) CORPORATION, based entirely on computerised HEARSAY EVIDENCE (Garbage Out = Garbage In) … as opposed to FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, directly from the Mind Recall of a Human Being, who knows EXACTLY what happened, and will swear to it on penalty of perjury!

  3. Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced:

    “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”

    Buckley J. held that (Civil Dispute, e.g. Council Tax, etc): “No contempt had been committed because the case was to be tried by a Judge sitting alone, who would be unaffected”.

    Summary: In a Civil Dispute, the only ones who could ever be in Contempt of Court are the Judge, Magistrates, Clerks, etc.

    The Plaintiff & Defendant could (and probably WOULD) by in Contempt of each other (otherwise they wouldn’t be there …) but can’t possibly be in Contempt of COURT.

    • Brilliant, thanks very much for this authority Veronica. 😎

      So there you have it, it’s the corrupt judge who’s in contempt when he refuses to confirm his intention to abide his solemn oath. Failure to comply would suggest that the judge does indeed intend to prejudice your right to equal access to justice.

      In doing so, he also voids the contract!

      Detailed Info: Contempt

  4. Just saw this post and what I’ve learned from FOI requests needs to be made more public.

    Is the judge/magistrate acting under ‘oath of office’ or ‘oath of court’? Both are vastly different and have vastly different implications for anyone hoping for justice.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 only requires tribunals to be held in signatory countries. Watch that one.

  5. Hi first post I have a tribunal coming up with the DWP,can I put the jugde on is oath of office ? is that the same as a court ?.

    I found this but would welcome a second opinion.

    The tribunal system of the United Kingdom is part of the national system of administrative justice with tribunals classed as non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).[1] Though it has grown up on an ad hoc basis since the beginning of the twentieth century, from 2007 reforms were put in place to build a unified system with recognised judicial authority, routes of appeal and regulatory supervision.

    Thanking you for your time.

  6. In Canada and all commonwealth countries, Judges, lawyers, Crown attorneys, political office holders, cops, civil servants, et. al. all swear an oath of true allegiance to the Queen. The Queen is the Government of Canada, (Parliament is a body of shills providing nothing more than a pretence/illusion of democracy.) Therefore, it is vital that people know 3 important things:

    1. The Queen is a corporation sole. If you don’t have a contract with said corporation and you are not an employee thereof, there is nothing to discuss. They have no jurisdiction over you as a freeman. See Section 32 and 52 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which make that clear. The Charter only applies to the Government and all laws must conform to the Charter. File a notice of mistake pointing this out and asking for proof of contract made with full disclosure of all relevant facts pertaining to the subject matter of the hearing and to show proof of breach thereof and stating that you are not an employee and demanding proof of employment by production of employment records, otherwise they have no jurisdiction and failure to produce within “X” days (usually 10 business days) will upon notice of default become uncontested fact.

    2. The oath matters, because they can not enact or enforce anything that violates the Queen’s oath, without violating theirs. Here is a most excellent discussion of the case of John Anthony Hill and the ramifications of that:

    3. Your legal person is a trust created under the Ceste Que Vie Trust Act of 1666. Basically they assume everyone to be dead, missing or missing at sea, and take control of your assets, including the net present value of the average life’s production. As of 1983, in Canada a child is worth $7.95 million at birth and the trust earns 12.3% per annum. They hide this from you and when they “charge” you, they are after a monetary charge against the value of your trust.

    So to accomplish this constructive fraud, the courts, start with the fraudulent presumption that the judge is the Administrator/Executor, the Crown is the beneficiary and you are the trustee, whom they plan to find in breach of trust. You must therefore establish for and on the record that you are the beneficiary, sole shareholder, administrator and director of your legal person and that they are the trustees. (You can’t be both beneficiary and trustee or administrator and trustee, but you can be bebeficiary and appoint yourself as Administrator/Executor/Director) Since only the Administrator can make decisions about your legal person as a corporate fiction, you basically become the judge. Watch Dean Clifford’s excellent videos on for details on the roles in trust and contract law.

    I’ve seen numerous videos where people who identify themselves as the living man and the beneficiary of the decedant trust and the living man, not the corporate person, where the judge and/or prosecutor bail and flee the court. I think this is why; the person brought before the court, are at that moment the judge and can order their arrest or possibly sentence them to jail on the spot! They must figure that if they know enough to assert their correct role that they know the rest and it’s time to run!

    • Thanks for that Tony.

      The link doesn’t work but I think this is what you posted:

      Oaths Act 17751775 CHAPTER 39 15 Geo 3F1An Act to impower Justices of the Peace to administer Oaths where any Penalty is to be levied or Distress to be made, in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, wherein the same is not expressly directed.Preamble.
      Whereas it is frequently necessary for justices of the peace to administer oaths or affirmations, where penalties are to be levied or distresses to be made, in pursuance of Acts of Parliament, which they have no power to administer, unless authorised so to do by such Acts respectively:
      Annotations: Help about AnnotationAmendments (Textual)F1Short title given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14)[1.] In all cases where penalties, &c. are directed to be levied under Acts, justices are empowered to administer oaths &c. for levying such penalties, &c.In all cases where any penalty is directed to be levied or distress to be made, by any Act of Parliament now in force or hereafter to be made, it shall and may be lawful for any justice or justices acting under the authority of such Acts respectively, and he and they is and are hereby authorised and impowered to administer an oath or oaths, affirmation or affirmations, to any person or persons, for the purpose of levying such penalities or making such distresses respectively.

  7. Best to get a private agreement to the fact you cannot appear in front of an impostor who administrates laws added to God’s law in violation of God’s command to not submit to or serve false gods…Everyone who fails to appear without a lawful excuse//// I cannot be compelled to participate in a fraud wherein my name has been altered with no statute code or regulation allowing that alteration to a dead thing in law identical to an obituary formation of the name of a dead man..I am not a necrophiliac and it violates my faith to have relations with the dead…Will it be your knowledgeable attempt to intimidate me to violate my faith?? If that is so may I inquire where you gain your authority from to do that? If you are not compliant to reply I would like the name of your superior so this matter can be seen by all parties to it in honor.

  8. my name roy i was at court 20th aug london i quoted the magna catra 1215 and claimed common law jurdiction with the bill of rights after sacking both barrister solictor but judge nearly droped from his chair i was polite to him its the police up woulds that u have go at the crown prosacuter coundnt belive his ears no one that has repsents in crimal court mensions magna carta so theres hope

  9. The Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights, The Universal Declaration,The European Convention means sweet FA while courts are conducting close door proceedings,with no Camera or recording equipment allowed into court and no Media/press. So why would you expect them to abide by their oath of office & how can you prove it when they refuse?
    It is you the people who have allowed this to happen, by only caring about yourselves and to hell with every other person, until sooner or later it happens to yourselves.

  10. So from what planet of the solo system is this clown at the top of this page from. Obviously he has not been to either Greenwich or Bromley Magistrates courts or the prick would have known that these hearings are being held behind closed doors and out of sight and hearing of these i imaginary witnesses that he or she is mouthing off about.
    No asking a magistrate for to produce their Oath is not as He or she says being Stupid.
    However thinking that all courts are conducting proceedings in the same way and in compliance with the rule of law takes Stupidity to a whole new level.
    I Suppose you still believe in Santa clause, what do you think he is going to get you this year a new Brain?
    Maybe he will git you one to match your big mouth, what do you think ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s