Oaths in Alberta a Fraud?

mythstifieD

Critical Thinker
mythstifieD
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
386
Hey everyone, I'm seeking your opinion on this matter. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to put so much weight on two measly letters D and O... But maybe there's something to this?

I've been having a debate with a friend on Facebook that is interested in the Freeman on the Land rhetoric, and he claims that Judges in my province make a fake oath and are therefore unaccountable to the law themselves. Furthermore, they are impostors that have no right to judge us. I'm certainly no lawyer, the only thing I could really say is "Show me ONE instance of a Judge actually exercising this loophole" and the only response was that there was some sort of Justice/Media cover up on such events. Woo alert!? I did not post this in the other FOTL thread as I think that one is just too long and disparate. The FOTL stuff is pretty vast, it almost warrants it's own section. With the waning 9/11 conspiracy movement and the rising NWO conspiracy movement, FOTL is gaining a lot of popularity these days (at least in my neck of the woods).

Here is his Facebook Note:
--------------------------------
Are the Oaths taken by public servants in Alberta fraudulent?

Lets see...
Oaths of Allegiance Act, R.S.C. 1985
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-o-1/latest/rsc-1985-c-o-1.html


Oath of allegiance

2. (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:

I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

Demise of the Crown
(2) Where there is a demise of the Crown, there shall be substituted in the oath of allegiance the name of the Sovereign for the time being.
Click to expand...



Take note: "take the oath in the following form, and no other"

Now, lets see the Alberta Oaths of Office Act

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-o-1/latest/rsa-2000-c-o-1.html


Oath of allegiance

1(1) When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an oath of allegiance it shall be taken in the following form:
I,_________________________, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
So help me God.

(2) Where the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is expressed in the form, the name of the Sovereign at the time that the oath is taken shall be substituted therefor if different.

RSA 1980 cO‑1 s1

Official oath

2 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an official oath on
(a) being appointed to an office other than that of judge or justice of the peace, or
(b) being admitted to a profession or calling,

the oath shall be taken in the following form:
I,_________________________, swear that I will diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law the office of _________________________.
So help me God.

RSA 1980 cO‑1 s2

Judicial oath

3 When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take a judicial oath on being appointed as a judge or as a justice of the peace, the oath shall be taken in the following form:
I,_________________________, swear that I will honestly and faithfully and to the best of my ability exercise the powers and duties of a___________________________.
So help me God.
Click to expand...



What do we notice is different here?

Firstly and most importantly the little word "do" is missing!

The Alberta Oaths of Office Act is in direct violation of the Federal Oaths of Allegiance Act!



What is the legal definition of "do"?

Blacks Law 2nd edition states the following:


"DO. Lat. I give. The ancient and aptest word of feoffment and of gift. 2. Bl. Comm, 310, 316; Co. Litt. 9."



"DO, DICO, ADDICO. Lat. I give, I say, I adjudge... Do denoted that he gave or granted actions, exceptions and judices..."




"DO UT DES. Lat. I give that you may give; I give [you] that you may give
."



"DO UT FACIAS. Lat. I give that you may do. I give [you] that you may do or make [for me]."
Click to expand...




Saying "I do" means, that "I give".

It is the act of giving the oath! Without "Do" the oath is not given!



FRAUD is defined in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition on page 660

" An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by the suppression of truth, or by suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech of silence, word of mouth, or look, or gesture. Delanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 464 A. 2nd 1243, 1251. A generic term, embracing all maltofarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one Individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and UNFAIR way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okl. 117, 39 P.2nd 150 " BAD FAITH " and " FRAUD " are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, unfairness, ect."
Click to expand...
 
It simply seems that they are different oaths for different purposes. The federal law is for Oaths of Allegiance. The judges are taking taking Judicial Oaths. There's no reason to think that they have to be the same.

Linda
 
mythstifieD said:
Saying "I do" means, that "I give".

It is the act of giving the oath! Without "Do" the oath is not given!
Click to expand...



There's also another interesting difference, which might make this alleged difference moot:

2. (1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
Click to expand...


1(1) When by a statute of Alberta a person is required to take an oath of allegiance it shall be taken in the following form:
Click to expand...



You can't "give" the second oath, as it is taken when "required" of you; the first oath leaves open the voluntary taking of the oath.

Hey, if we're going to quibble about minor details of language, let's at least quibble about all the minor differences. That's how magic works, after all.
 
mythstifieD said:
I've been having a debate with a friend on Facebook that is interested in the Freeman on the Land rhetoric, and he claims that Judges in my province make a fake oath and are therefore unaccountable to the law themselves. ... I'm certainly no lawyer, the only thing I could really say is "Show me ONE instance of a Judge actually exercising this loophole" and the only response was that there was some sort of Justice/Media cover up on such events.
Click to expand...

If they have the power to cover up such things, why would they need the loophole in the first place?
 
Aside from the obvious fact that your friend is a moron, there is one key element missing in his "analysis".

You have to take federalism into account. There are three levels of courts in Alberta, the Court of Appeal, The Court of Queen's Bench, and the Provincial Court. The first two are staffed with judges appointed by the federal government, the third is staffed with judges appointed by the province. All three levels of courts are created by the province. The authority for all of this flows from the Constitution Act, 1867 - s.92(14) for the provincially-appointed courts and s. 96 for the federally-appointed courts.

Regardless of which court a judge presides over, he takes the provincial oath. This is because all of the courts are created by statutes of the province, even the courts where the judges are appointed federally. Given the separation of powers in Canadian federalism, it would be ultra vires the federal government (meaning "beyond the powers of) if it tried to regulate oath-taking for courts in Alberta. That is a power constitutionally granted to each province.

See here:

s. 92(14) and s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/const/const1867.html
Click to expand...
And here:

s. 5 of the Court of Appeal Act

Oath of office
5 Each judge, before entering on the duties of that office, shall take the oath prescribed by the Oaths of Office Act before the Lieutenant Governor, the Chief Justice of Alberta or the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-c-30/latest/rsa-2000-c-c-30.html

s. 5 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act:

Oath of office
5 Each judge and master in chambers, before entering on the duties of that office, shall take the oath prescribed by the Oaths of Office Act before the Lieutenant Governor, the Chief Justice of Alberta, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta or the Associate Chief Justice.

s. 9.12(1) of the Provincial Court Act

Oath of office
9.12(1) Every judge, before taking office as Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, Assistant Chief Judge, judge or supernumerary judge, shall take and subscribe before the Chief Justice of Alberta, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta or the Chief Judge, the Deputy Chief Judge or an Assistant Chief Judge of the Provincial Court the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath prescribed by the Oaths of Office Act.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
You can't "give" the second oath, as it is taken when "required" of you; the first oath leaves open the voluntary taking of the oath.
Click to expand...

Good eye!!! I think that may be a good way of going about it. Basically, my friend *IS* right that the DO is significant, but it was actually left out because the DO would actually make the Oath an option, when it is not an option. Interesting!
 
Isn't the oath written in English? In English DO doesn't mean give, give means give. Do, if I am remembering correctly, means to do.
 
In addition to the fact that, as noted, the Federal oath does not apply to provincial judges, your friend is confused about English grammar. In the simple present tense, verbs have three moods: normal, progressive, or emphatic.

From UsingEnglish.com:

Emphatic forms, sometimes called the emphatic tenses or emphatic mood, are made with the auxiliary verb do in the present or past tense + the base form of the verb:

"He doesn't work very hard."

"I don't agree with you- he does work very hard."

In the second sentence , the speaker uses the emphatic form does work as a way of contradicting the first speaker.
Click to expand...


Simple present tense, first-person singular conjugation of the verb "to swear":

I swear (normal)
I am swearing (progressive)
I do swear (emphatic)

"I swear" and "I do swear" have precisely the same meaning in terms of the action described; the only difference is whether the speaker wishes to show normal or strong emphasis. Your friend's argument is nothing but a steaming pile of fail.
 
mythstifieD said:
There's English, then there's Legalese.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that the language is slightly different. The Oaths of Allegiance Act simply does not apply to judges in provincial courts.
 
D'rok said:
It doesn't matter that the language is slightly different. The Oaths of Allegiance Act simply does not apply to judges in provincial courts.
Click to expand...



We know that; but he's talking to people who believe in the Magic Words. You have to talk down to their level.
 
Horatius said:
Hey, if we're going to quibble about minor details of language, let's at least quibble about all the minor differences. That's how magic works, after all.
Click to expand...

Yes! You must draw the circle around the pentagon before you raise the demon or you may be turned into a newt.

It's OK I got better.

<<<<<see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom