WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?
It has been said by many a patriot that they will not take an oath in court as that is forbidden in the Bible at
Matthew 5 : 33-34
That would be swearing before you say what you have to say . Here is something that no one to my recollection has ever brought forth so people can see just what it means when everyone else gets on the stand, puts hand on the bible or just raised the right hand and says he will tell the truth , the whole truth , so help me God. So they are going against what the Lord said not to do. So that forswearing was always on my mind and since I could find no one that ever brought up just what forswearing is , I decided to go to Webster's 1828 Dictionary and see what the definition was. What a revelation that could be used in any court to stifle those that will forswear and is just as great as Matthew 5: 33-34 when you invoke it.
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst make one hair white or black.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
The words of Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:33-37.
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by
any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12
How often does the US government require an oath of its subjects ?
When invoking it you are telling the court all others have sworn to tell a lie and you cannot do that.
Here is what Webster's has to say and you can work it in any way you want when in court. You all know the courts have said people can lie, right? Well here is why and ask yourself why hasn't anyone brought this up before.
Page 87 Vol 1 Webster's 1828 American Dictionary
FORSWEAR. 1. To reject or renounce upon oath
2. To deny upon oath
like innocence, and as serenely bold
As truth, how loudly he forswears they God.
To forswear one's self , is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self
FORSWEAR. v. i. To swear falsely; to commit perjury
FORSWEARER, n. One who rejects on oath; one who is perjured; one that swears a false oath.
FORSWEARING, ppr. Denying on oath; swearing falsely.
FORSWORN. Pp of forswear. Renounced on oath; perjured.
So when you are asked to forswear as is everyone else, then you are in effect stating that what ever you say will be a lie and not the truth. Read it above and think what I just said and this is in conformance to what the courts have said about any official can lie because they forswore did they not?
Here from Hosea is this about forswearing and what it really means, translated from the original Latin by the Rev. John Owen,vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire 1846
Volume First, Hosea--Wm. M. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1950, Michigan. Printed in the United States of America
Zechariah says this; "By cursing, and lying, and killing", &c., "
"Alah" means to swear: some explain it in this place as signifying to
forswear; and others read the two together, "'aloh wechachesh", to
swear and lie, that is to deceive by swearing. But as "'alah" means
often to curse, the Prophet here, I doubt not, condemns the practice
of cursing, which was become frequent and common among the people.
So it is that when the courts want one to forswear they are really saying that you shall lie and swear to it. I believe the Lord said "no man shall know the truth", so how can anyone swear to tell the truth when he knows not the truth?
Now another paradox shows up in penalty statements on government forms and that is a perjury statement. So we go to Webster's 1828 Dictionary again to see just what perjury is.
Perjure. per and jure, to swear; that is, to swear aside or beyond. (Note, you are swearing beyond what you have already said when, "you shall state the truth , the whole truth" in whatever you say 1 min , 10 min or a day later. And you are closing the statement asking God for help.)
[Now God is your witness that you are telling the truth? Pray tell, if there is a dispute don't I have the right to bring the witness forward and put that witness on the stand to verify I was telling the truth? Why is it that no man yet has invoked this fact of law to put God on the stand to tell them he is telling the truth? Why not, they made you take an oath right? They set the stage for bringing your witness to the stand to testify you are telling the truth by raising your right hand and lying (forswearing) that you will tell the truth. They can't deny that fact now can they?]
Willfully to make a false oath when administered by lawful authority (note it does not say legally) or in a court of justice; to foreswear; as ,the witness perjured himself.
Perjury. n. The act of crime of willfully making a false oath, when lawfully administered; nor a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, in a matter material to the issue.
OK now is the oath legal or lawful? Is the court a judicial or administrative court? Was it lawfully or legally administered? There is a big difference. See no man shall know the truth because you can't truthfully answer even these questions)
When the court says to take an oath before you ever say anything it is -- To forswear one's self , is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self, see above under perjure.
As to the jurat (perjury statement on forms) how can you know whether they are using terms or words on the form? People cannot. And , when they sign the form they automatically perjure themselves because terms are used, which make what appear to be common words actually something entirely different when they are terms. Ergo you must have lied in the fact you said something and they said something entirely different. They now perceive you lied and there is nothing you can do because you signed under penalties of perjury, see perjury above.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos. So who is telling the truth, you or the government drone? Who wrote the statute in such a way that only they know terms, while the even educated man knows not of terms. So only the ones knowing terms are telling the truth as to terms, BUT in reality the fraud of it all they are telling a lie and swearing an oath to tell a lie. Think about that last sentence real hard and you will see even though they are telling the truth on one hand they are lying on the other hand.
If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there would be no servants!
This is an excerpt from E. Simmons
Think of this, Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false
charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing
jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so.
The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law
couldn't kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How's that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly freeman. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
The Informer
August 2004
Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) (Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case.);
THE INFORMER's Addendum of 2008