Judges and Attorneys

[idknow]

Originally Posted by saber8

There is a "Examination of Debtor" on 3/3/05 in the county court house. I am "ORDERED " to appear. I checked the rules in the state codes and find to my horror that there are severe sanctions for refusing to swear an oath in the courtroom. I've discovered also that the scriptures specifically forbid one to swear an oath. Claiming religious objection is no grounds for refusing to take the oath......... any comments?
The oath under this type of examination is particularly dangerous because they can ask questions the answer to which one may have forgotten & they can hold you in contempt for not answering. Contempt here is automatic 5 days & 5,000.00 sanction.......... Hope someone has some experience with this as well as the question of whether one has the "right" in this inquiry to invoke the 4th and of course the 5th against self incrimination. it is civil proceeding BUT there are heavy sanctions involved so do the above protections apply ???? Time is very short. I"m asking for immediate assistance on these questions. Thanks

There can be no sanction for refusing to do something that is contrary to one's conscience!

and clearly, one refusing to take an oath where it is said ``scripture says that i shall not take an oath of man''
cannot be penalised for obeying scripture.

I hope that's clear

[Shoonra]

I do believe that every state and jurisdiction has provision for affirming rather than swearing. This goes back, at least, to the US Constitution's provisions for the inauguration of a president.

I have no idea what is meant by an earlier message about judges and lawyers taking "an oath to the BAR". They take an oath (or affirmation) to support the Constitution, laws, professional standards, etc., but it would be an oath to God, not to "the BAR" (and I don't know why this is put in all-caps).

[squirrel]

How bout that oath for not exposing the Bankruptcy !! and all the other lies that follow.


In a time of Universal DECIET telling the truth would be a Revolutionary act !!

Oooops, I forgot.

Traitor tar babies " I mean liars/lawyers" cannot for the life of them, tell the truth..

It just boggles my mind that these traitors that call themselfs lawyers/attorneys, magistrates, clerks of court and politicians continue on with the lies and deciet even though they know that their time is near.

I, myself, would feel guilty about the lying/stealing/deciet and blasphemy that spewed from mouth just so I could have an easy meal ticket and not do any actual work.

Where do these teasonous traitors think they're going to hide when the shift hit the fan ?

It sure wont be in my hood !

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by idknow

There can be no sanction for refusing to do something that is contrary to one's conscience!

and clearly, one refusing to take an oath where it is said ``scripture says that i shall not take an oath of man''
cannot be penalised for obeying scripture.

I hope that's clear

Why wasn't it against his conscience to make a deal with the beast in the first instance? If he has a change of heart now, time to rebut and get forgiveness.

The court of fiction operates under the presumption that the debtor is a thing of their creation(a strawman, human being, a monster not entitled to inheritance rights of God's Kingdom). The man turned his back on God and entered into commerce, did he not? God said if you break his commandments he will do this and that to us, all of which is quite nasty. How can that "stranger within" make deals with the devil and then squirm out?
The man is standing in for the fiction so first he must rebut the fiction. The man demands rights for a thing that has none and is looked at as insane by the court. Think TicketSlayer.

Deuteronomy
43: The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44: He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
45: Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
46: And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
47: Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;

Avoid the deals with the beast in the first place, you will save yourself and your seed a lot of hassle later.

[mrg]

Q: "Do you swear [or Affirm] to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
A: "Right after the Judge and Lawyers do it."

Q: "Do you swear [or Affirm] to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
A: "No."

[idknow]

Originally Posted by mrg

Q: "Do you swear [or Affirm] to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
A: "Right after the Judge and Lawyers do it."

Q: "Do you swear [or Affirm] to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
A: "No."

I just noticed that the correct answers are already there!!!
Here are good alternate answers:

1. "as it is written, thou shalt not tempt the lord thy God."

2. "as is it written, swear not by heaven or earth, temple or gold."

how's them apples?!

[Shoonra]

There was a case about ten years ago of some witness who had cooked up his own oath which he wanted to use in place of the traditional one, by which he promised "to tell the wholly integrated truth". The judge didn't know what this meant amd gave him the choice of either swearing or affirming to the traditional oath or not testifying at all.

[bridge of sighs]

Do not forget luke 11-46 and 52

[idknow]

Originally Posted by citizensoldier

Camino,

My response in question form was not meaning I was surprised by my observation, but really asking weis how can any judge or lawyer be considered to really honor God when they have at least been a party to breaking their oath.

if they are not "double minded" then it's not a problem

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There was a case about ten years ago of some witness who had cooked up his own oath which he wanted to use in place of the traditional one, by which he promised "to tell the wholly integrated truth". The judge didn't know what this meant amd gave him the choice of either swearing or affirming to the traditional oath or not testifying at all.

what's the punch line?