1.6: What is "Oath or Affirmation"?
Description
This article is from the Lawful Arrest/Search/Seizure FAQ, by Ahimsa Dhamapada ahimsa@mu.clarityconnect.net with numerous contributions by others.
1.6: What is "Oath or Affirmation"?
This is the sworn complaint of a civilian; it is the
accusation of wrong-doing.
Why must it come from a civilian? Because there is a HUGE
conflict of interest if
1) the government makes the law
2) the government makes accusations of violations of law
3) the government licensed attorney speaks for you in court
4) the government judges/courts find you guilty
5) the government keeps your money
The design of the United States Government as described
by the Constitution made it quite clear that the designers
intended WE THE PEOPLE to be in control and the beneficiary
of each step of the way:
1) The People should make the law (or the People's
freely-chosen representatives -- PS: This is NOT what we have today!)
2) The People should make the accusations of wrongdoing
(civilian complaint and Grand Jury indictment)
3) The People have a right to speak for themselves in court
4) The People decide guilt or innocence (trial jury)
5) Crime should not make the government rich. If anyone
receives compensation/restitution for crime, it
should be the victims, NOT the government.
In the days before the Constitution was written, the
Colonists were being accused, arrested, and transported
"beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences"
[Declaration of Independence] by the British government.
(Note: while it doesn't say what a pretended offence is,
one could guess that it is like "Failure to pay the Tea
Tax", where the government is the plaintiff/complaintant
[i.e., the originator of the complaint] and there is no
victim. Hmmm. Sound Familiar?)
The Founders made this requirement of the Sworn Complaint
of a civilian as insurance against tyranny. It was common
in those days that there was no civilian complaint; the
people were often arrested for "Violations of the King's
Law" by the King's Standing Army, because of Standing
Orders to do so. (Do you see a similarity to an occupying
Police force who have standing orders to arrest violators
of the State Law?!)
Now, there may be extreme circumstances when decent
people sitting on a jury may waive the requirement of
the complaint of a civilian, such as if a police officer
witnesses a murder (and the victim is unable to complain!),
but one might imagine that these cases should be uncommon,
and the officer should be prepared to answer to a public
inquiry on the matter.
"For in a Republic, who is 'the country?' Is
it the Government which is for the moment in
the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a
servant - merely a temporary servant; it cannot
be its prerogative to determine what is right
and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot
and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders,
not originate them." -- Mark Twain
Today, most police and judicial actions are *not* initiated
by the complaint of a civilian. To cover up for this fact,
most court summons or indictments are listed as
"THE PEOPLE vs. Joe Smith"
...as if to imply that even though the courts are acting
without the complaint of *just ONE civilian*, they are
somehow representing the interests of "all the people".
Continue to:
My Books
