IV.   Consensus

An Oath is a public invocation and affirmation of truth or acceptance of one or more Rights in Trust:

(i) A Testimony under a valid Oath is the strongest form of testimonial evidence; and

(ii) A person cannot be invested into an Office, nor hold any authority or power without a properly pronounced Oath and Vow.

The word Oath originates from the Cuilliaéan (Holly) of Ireland in the 3rd/4th Millennium BCE and the ancient Irish word Oath meaning “sacred surety or bond by words”. Hence the ancient proverb of the Celts “My Word is my Bond” in reference to the ancient honor to the original and true meaning of Oath:

(i) The various claims that the word Oath comes from Anglo-Saxon invented term “ao”, or Dutch term “eed” or German “eid” or Latin “utor” are all deliberately false, deceptive and misleading attempts to cloud the overwhelming linguistic evidence throughout ancient Irish, Scottish and Celtic languages of the presence of the word “oath” and its original meaning; and

(ii) The original meaning of Oath as a solemn public appeal to the Divine Creator as witness that some testimony be true appears to have survived within Celtic culture and Anglo-Irish and Scottish history to at least the early 16th Century; and

(iii) The deliberately false, deceptive and misleading creation of the compound word “swear” from sue (su,sui,sow) and wear (weir,wier) occurred no earlier than the second half of the 16th Century and prior to the fabrication of the false scripture of Matthew 5:33-37 against “swearing” and falsely connecting the word “swear” to the process of “oaths”; and

(iv) The appearance of the profane, sacrilegious and necromantic definition attached to Oaths being “a careless use of the name of God or Christ or out of something sacred; or profane swearing” appears at the same time that the words “swear” and “sworn” appear in English Statute and the extraordinary Statute of Henry VIII in 1541 (33Hen8.c.27) that claimed the power to nullify and void Oaths using the sacrilegious, anti-Christian and heretical claim that the Monarch of England be Supreme and “God-like”; and

(v) Thereafter, the reference to Oaths within English Statute is almost always connected with inserting the words “swear” and “sworn” to reinforce the impression that an Oath was to be made through some ritual of “swearing”, thus in contradiction to the false Christian Scriptures commissioned by agents of the Roman Death Cult and Necromancers in the late 16th Century; and

(vi) However, toward the end of the 18th Century, the function of Oaths and their necessary importance in forming proper Trusts, Office and Authority was reintroduced into British Law through the Oaths Act (15Geo3. c.39) that now introduced the notion of administrative Oaths through Justices of the Peace and therefore the bizarre notion of administrative Trusts, whether or not a person properly pronounced an Oath or not; and

(vii) The false, absurd and morally repugnant notion of “administrative oaths”, as the justification for creating administrative trusts as if “valid trusts”, was further refined through subsequent statutes in 1838 (1 & 2 Vict c 105), 1888 (51 & 52 Vict c 46), 1909 (9 Edw 7 c 39) and 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz 2 C 21). However, in all cases the notion that an administrative act of a Justice of the Peace is equivalent to a valid public pronouncement of an Oath is unsustainable in law; and

(viii) In direct contrast and as evidence as to the continued knowledge as to the legal effect of a valid Oath, the introduction of various Oaths acts to ensure that specific persons are properly invested under a valid Oath, compared to the rest of the population, is proof of the power of valid Oaths, namely the Coronation Oath Act 1567 (c.8) and Coronation Oath Act 1688.

As the concepts of public invocation and affirmation of truth and the public invocation and acceptance of one or more Rights in Trust are fundamental principles of the Rule of Law, the existence of such concepts of law in civilized society prior to the wholesale corruption of the Western mind by the necromancers of the Roman Death Cult from the 16th Century onward, is well documented:

(i) The earliest form of Oath and the word “oath” itself literally originates from the Cuilliaéan (Holly) of Ireland and the 3rd/4th Millennium BCE Irish word Oath meaning “sacred surety or bond by words” through the ritual of séal meaning “my words bind (bond) me (to some promise/oath)”; and

(ii) The ancient Greek form of Oath central to the Rule of Law of the Alexandrian Empire was the word omnuó (ομνύω) meaning “to pronounce, take an oath to Divine (derived) law"; and

(iii) The Roman form of Oath central to the Rule of Law of the Roman Empire called in Latin iuro meaning “I take an oath upon the law (in the name of the Divine)”; and

(iv) The Carolingian form of Oath revived in the 8th Century CE was called committo from the Latin of the same name meaning "I bind myself according to the law" and was the central element of the ritual of Fealty between Lord and Vassal under Sacre Loi (Sacred Law).

The deliberately false, deceptive, misleading and morally repugnant words of swear and sworn are from the 16th Century and have nothing to do with the valid process of making an oath, but the opposite:

(i) Swear is shorthand for foreswear and means properly from its inception “to renounce or deny something; or to commit perjury”. Hence, when one swears (or foreswears), one literally commits an act of perjury, falsity and profanity in making a false oath against heaven. In other words, “to swear” is to “self curse”; and

(ii) The word Swear was created from the compounding of two words in the 16th Century being sue from su, sue, sow meaning "female pig" and "to petition, entreat, submit to plead" and the term wear (from weir, wier) meaning "to fence or enclose, to impede the flow (of a river)" by tradition for the purpose of "fishing"; and

(iii) The word Sworn as the past tense of “swear” was created from the term worn (from worne, wern) meaning “to surrender, capitulate (from exhaustion)”.

By the custom and tradition throughout the history of law, an Oath can only be valid if the following criteria exist:

(i) The one making the Oath comes with good intention, good character and good conscience; and

(ii) The one making the Oath has the Right and proper authority to make such an Oath; and

(iii) At least one other person is present and prepared to witness the Oath and testify to such a fact; and

(iv) The candidate raises his right hand with a flat palm so that the face of the open palm can be clearly seen by all witnesses during the pronunciation of the Oath, whilst his left covers his heart as the symbol and source of truth of the spoken words; and

(v) That the pronunciation of the Oath never uses language of profanity such as “swear”; and

(vi) That some written Memorial (Memorandum) to the event exists, signed by the one making the Oath and a different personality as witness.

The claim that an Oath is only valid when the one making it is holding an external object of claimed sacred significance is a historic falsity and is a reference to the ancient pagan Roman tradition of holding some relic of an ancestor as a means of creating a negative spiritual surety against breaking such an Oath:

(i) No valid Oath, or Christian Oath or true Catholic or religious Oath requires the one making such an Oath to place their hand on some object (such as a Bible); and

(ii) As the text of the book known as the Bible is clearly contradictory to all known civilized Rule of Law, particularly in the proper formation of Office, Oaths, Vows and Authority, any person holding or placing their hand on a Bible, by the words within the Bible itself, invalidates any such claimed Oath or Vow.

No one should be heard within a valid forum of law unless they have previously pronounced a valid Oath for the matter at hand, without reference to the profane terms of “swear” or “sworn” or touching such sacrilegious and false objects such as a Bible. Furthermore, no testimony in written or oral form is valid unless a valid Oath has previously been pronounced and witnessed. An Oath extorted by malice, force, or grave fear is null.

In the absence of a valid and proper Oath, no person claiming possession, or occupation, or investiture or ownership of an Office holds any authority or power whatsoever and any and all actions made by such a person are completely without validity in law, whether or not the parties present did consent or decline.