Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: criminal syndicalism as a thing of the past

  1. #11
    Thank you Allodial! That kind of posting is very informative.

    That is a very edifying link Loveunderlaw. Especially interesting to me is the part about oaths.

    On March 29, 1990, Wallace was indicted on three counts of tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and three counts of willful failure to timely file Federal income tax returns or pay taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. At his trial, Wallace filed a “Motion to Challenge the Oath.” He proposed an alternative oath written by him, to be used before testifying. His alternative oath was to be worded as follows: “Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated Honesty, only with fully integrated Honesty and nothing but fully integrated Honesty?” The court denied Ward’s request, stating that the standard oath “which has been administered in courts of law throughout the United States [ . . . ] should not be required to give way to the defendant’s idiosyncratic distinctions between truth and honesty.” The court would not allow Ward to testify in his defense unless he took the standard oath.

    Ward made an opening statement at the trial, and cross-examined government witnesses. He also offered a compromise whereby he would take both the standard oath and his own oath, and the court denied that request. Ward presented no witnesses on his own behalf, and did not testify himself. He was convicted on all charges. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed Ward’s conviction, stating that his belief was apparently sincere, and that his sincere belief was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quoted from the Fourth Circuit opinion in the case of United States v. Looper[11] to the effect that “[a]ll the common law requires is a form or statement which impresses upon the mind and conscience of a witness the necessity for telling the truth. Thus, defendant’s privilege to testify may not be denied him solely because he would not accede to a form of oath or affirmation not required by the common law”.

    Ward was allowed to use his own oath in a re-trial. At the re-trial, on December 2, 1993, Ward was convicted in connection with tax evasion on combined personal income of over $438,000 for years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and combined income of over $614,000 for his company (I&O Publishing) for those years, and he was sent to prison. Ward’s challenges to the imposition of civil tax fraud penalties were rejected.
    Criminal syndicalism is itself the swearing in together. Public officials swearing in together form government and judiciary. This is symbolically the beginning of Separation in the Bible too.

    Name:  Enoch Oath passage.jpg
Views: 297
Size:  127.4 KB

    Jesus warns us all explicitly never to swear and in most courts, maybe all, the alternative of affirming is granted but that process is only admissible before a sworn in official. The surface reasoning behind swearing is that one must be subject to the judge for perjury. Thinking that through though, that submission is saying, I am like you now. I join your judiciary/lodge.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    Thank you Allodial! That kind of posting is very informative.

    That is a very edifying link Loveunderlaw. Especially interesting to me is the part about oaths.

    Criminal syndicalism is itself the swearing in together. Public officials swearing in together form government and judiciary. This is symbolically the beginning of Separation in the Bible too.

    Name:  Enoch Oath passage.jpg
Views: 297
Size:  127.4 KB

    Jesus warns us all explicitly never to swear and in most courts, maybe all, the alternative of affirming is granted but that process is only admissible before a sworn in official. The surface reasoning behind swearing is that one must be subject to the judge for perjury. Thinking that through though, that submission is saying, I am like you now. I join your judiciary/lodge.

    I see your point, "I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth" makes sense now under that context.

  3. #13
    Here they swear in: Do you swear or affirm...

    In context of the above case, as well as in my daydreams hypothesizing my Answer:

    Absolutely NOT!

    But here's the thing. I would not pull this stunt until being sworn in to testify. If I am a defendant then the judge would then be refusing to let me testify and trying to make it look like I refused to testify because I refused to swear in.

    So the judge might tell me that I have to swear in, or affirm so that I will incur the same penalties for perjury. I would say that I do not like being punished and that I do not subject myself to his judgment. [Likely I have not even researched his oath of office at that stage if I am summoned as a material witness.] Why would I allow myself to be judged whether I am lying on the stand or not?

    This is a difficult point to get for most people. Conditioning. If he cannot punish me for perjury without me swearing or affirming that is great. Being outside the Bar, or the Court, whatever you want to call it is exactly where I want to stay. However I am still subject to the Government (CHRIST Jesus) where I choose to stay. So I best not lie or mislead in any way, huh?

  4. #14
    Perhaps those Amway victims internalize the matter and take it personally with frustration their inability to sell $9 bottles of laundry detergent to their neighbors who can buy the same for $2 around the corner. So here they are sold books. Just like 'Blacks' and 'Whites' sold crappy 'self help materials' in the form of public schools that they be utterly dumbed down with hopes they'll never realize exactly what's transpiring around them...
    Thank you Allodial! I think now I see how it is that Amway survives such accusations as pyramid scam. My passage (Page 38) is unaffected by this enlightenment. I am speaking about internal politics while importing one style of criminal syndicalism inside another. - Amway in Christianity Explored. This indicator I found was that people allowing misbehavior of an upline Amway distributor were in his downline. These Amway couples vie for favor with their upline fellow Christians awaiting distribution of failed downline distributors' downlines. A state within a state - politics within politics.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 12-03-14 at 04:06 PM.

  5. #15
    A slight change of subject, but this thread has turned to something I've been thinking about lately, about swearing oaths and making affirmations -

    “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

    Is this not an oath? A pledge made before Divine Providence? If the question is inappropriate, please disregard or delete it.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Its funny how refusing to swear an oath can be punishable in some cases
    "Juror jailed after refusing to take oath in federal court; judge calls act unprecedented"
    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...fusing_to.html


    and not in others.
    "Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say 'so help me God'
    http://archive.airforcetimes.com/art...y-help-me-God-

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Alan View Post
    A slight change of subject, but this thread has turned to something I've been thinking about lately, about swearing oaths and making affirmations -

    “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

    Is this not an oath? A pledge made before Divine Providence? If the question is inappropriate, please disregard or delete it.
    Those 56 Signors are sometimes thought of as Party to the (Constitution) Contract. So you are right on topic; thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    Its funny how refusing to swear an oath can be punishable in some cases
    "Juror jailed after refusing to take oath in federal court; judge calls act unprecedented"
    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...fusing_to.html


    and not in others.
    "Airman denied reenlistment for refusing to say 'so help me God'
    http://archive.airforcetimes.com/art...y-help-me-God-
    That is interesting. There is probably something in the Jury Summons process where the jury commissioner grabbed that kind of jurisdiction?

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post

    That is interesting. There is probably something in the Jury Summons process where the jury commissioner grabbed that kind of jurisdiction?

    It has to be a little more then that because I have read on the net that there has been fines and jail for some witness on the court stand that refused the oath.
    They get contempt.
    But I think that charged is stretched to the assumption that "you are employed by the government."



    http://law.justia.com/codes/wyoming/...ection-6-5-306

    2014 Wyoming Statutes

    TITLE 6 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
    CHAPTER 5 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
    ARTICLE 3 - PERJURY AND CRIMINAL FALSIFICATION
    6-5-306. Refusal to appear or testify; avoidance of service; penalties; summary proceedings for contempt.

    (a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both, if he:

    (i) Refuses or intentionally fails to obey a lawful subpoena or citation which has been served upon him;

    (ii) Secretes himself or leaves his residence to avoid being served with a subpoena; or

    (iii) Refuses to take an oath or affirmation or, being sworn or affirmed, refuses to answer a question required by the court or presiding officer.

    (b) This section shall not prevent summary proceedings for contempt.

  9. #19
    Perjury. In England, perjury, as being a sin, was originally a matter of ecclesiastical cognisance.
    Had a hunch and found that.

    Jesus warns us all explicitly never to swear and in most courts, maybe all, the alternative of affirming is granted but that process is only admissible before a sworn in official. The surface reasoning behind swearing is that one must be subject to the judge for perjury. Thinking that through though, that submission is saying, I am like you now. I join your judiciary/lodge.
    So the Fallen Angels (Azazel and company) made a religious pact or formed a secret society? Its simple enough that if someone makes a false statement on a form that he deposit a sum in money and forfeit it should the false statement give rise to injury or loss. Prepayment vs postpayment?
    Last edited by allodial; 08-15-15 at 09:08 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •