Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
FTA Lawyer

Lawyer's Oath (Alberta)

Recommended Posts

I promised in another thread to find and reproduce the oath that I took as a lawyer in Alberta. I figured it made sense to put it in a topic of it's own. I'll leave it to someone else to start the discussion based on the content of the oath itself.

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God.

FTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me Satan.

The least-common-denominator in the above-mentioned pledge is the correspondence between the actual behaviour that occurs and the normative provision or legislative paradigm envisaged by our system of fundamental law. The positive assessment by the public prosecutor that this correspondence exists, requires that the investigative and repressive procedures be initiated.

The sects carry out their illegal activity of a so-called economic nature by the perpetration of fraud, that is, by actions consisting of deceit and/or subterfuge on the part of an agent who leads the offended person into error, inducing him to dispose of his estate in a way that brings unjust profit to the swindler (lawyer).

The crime of fraud is a psychological consequence of the offer, made by the sect, of practices for achieving a great variety of objectives in the areas of justice for the offended person.

Very frequently the fraud is followed by more serious crimes, such as extortion with or without accompanied violence and threats, forcing the victim to do or obtain something that realizes an unjust profit for the lawyer, with corresponding damage to the offended person.

This type of crime occurs whenever the victim, upon discovering that he has been tricked, refuses to pay the agreed sum for promises not received. In these circumstances, the dangerous nature of the sect is revealed by the demand for a sum of money, causing in the subject a true and proper situation of metus aking to Satanists.

In this regard, it must be emphasized that those who belong to this sect are people of great weakness. Often the subjects are mentally unhealthy from a young in age, are still maturing and, for the most part, are considered "pariah" in any family, that is, lacking adequate family support. Even when they age, their personalities are underdeveloped and above all, they lack even a minimum of appropriate values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you swear allegiance to the Queen but not the "Crown" or "Canada"? Sounds like another legal loophole to me. I mean if you are not responsible to Canada or the Crown then it is far game to use any means (including under-handed ones) to exercise your profession....so long as the Queen is not harmed....

It also makes me wonder that there is definitely a line drawn here specifically addressing perversion of the law, frivolous suits and integrity. How is it that many lawyers cross that line frequently and with impunity?

It makes me think that perhaps the oath is nothing more than a part of the deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Posit, but you really are a fool at times. The Monarch IS the Crown. The Monarch takes an oath to serve and do their duty, so to betray that which the Monarch is sworn to protect is to betray the Monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I promised in another thread to find and reproduce the oath that I took as a lawyer in Alberta. I figured it made sense to put it in a topic of it's own. I'll leave it to someone else to start the discussion based on the content of the oath itself.

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God.

FTA

OMG..... I believe that there needs to be changes to this, ALLEGIANCE to the QUEEN? What about swearing to the Allegiance of HUMANITY, HUMAN BEINGS? The last time I woke up and looked in the mirror I am a human, as is the Queen. No human is above another, we are all apart of the human race and thus should swear ALLEGIANCE to preserving Humanity and justice according to protection of HUMANS.

The least-common-denominator in the above-mentioned pledge is the correspondence
What is going on here???

The Children Of Satan by Luther Blissett

plagiarism reported

" ASSIMILATION" is the goal of society is it not? Really plagiarism is a joke when people in society want to be individual, but in reality we all fall under the same laws, and are expected to act "ACCORDINGLY" and follow and quote the same laws, and words.

So you swear allegiance to the Queen but not the "Crown" or "Canada"? Sounds like another legal loophole to me. I mean if you are not responsible to Canada or the Crown then it is far game to use any means (including under-handed ones) to exercise your profession....so long as the Queen is not harmed....

It also makes me wonder that there is definitely a line drawn here specifically addressing perversion of the law, frivolous suits and integrity. How is it that many lawyers cross that line frequently and with impunity?

It makes me think that perhaps the oath is nothing more than a part of the deception.

The deception in this oath is that they are still being brain washed into following and protecting the monarchy

not the interests of the people. I now pity lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm sorry, Posit, but you really are a fool at times. The Monarch IS the Crown."

Be careful of the mirror you're holding....

The "Crown" are the Queens "holdings" in a legal sense, and are apart from HRM. If the allegiance were to the Crown, or the Crown Corporation of Canada, then it might make sense. However, being only responsible to the Queen would allow Crown Officers to use any methods necessary, so long as it did not offend HRM Queen Elizabeth. It also retains a higher authority - even over compliance with the Constitution.

One more reason why Canada is not a nation and is only the play thing of royalty....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is going on here???

I was just about to check on that myself, no spelling mistakes, conherent sentences......just too much to think it was his.

Good catch CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You freak me out CA, you really do.

--

Back on topic, I don't know why you all expect lawyers to be on their knees for you all the time. They invested a great deal of time and money into their education and they deserve every penny of what they make. They provide you a service that you obviously get value for (most people take a lawyer over defending themselves, even when the option is available).

The hate for lawyers is irrational and it's mostly based around jealously IMO. Everyone wants what they have, but most are unwilling to put in the time and effort that they do on a regular basis. Hate of professionals is quite common amongst non-professionals... most this hate and the complaints are based around ethics that no one else is held to in society.

Most of the whiners about lawyers ethics are likely the same wage earners that add the extra hour here and there to their timecards and leave work early when the boss isn't around. Hypocrits really.

A lawyer owes you nothing, they provide a service, and you pay for it. Stop expecting them to be much more than that, they aren't public servants and are free to do what they wish in business within the law that is equally applied to them. They are held to account for their actions if they are unethical, your about to see a DA in the States lose his livelyhood because of a poor professional decision.

If you have complaints against specific lawyers, take it up with the bar association. Branding all of them as unethical is not only unreasonable, but it's completely incorrect. I've never met an unethical lawyer... like I said, most preceived 'ethical breaches' are more focused on jealousy and not wanting to pay fair value for services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyers help lots of Canadians make money. Got a union,got a contract raise? Thank a lawyer. Own a company that merged and increased in value because of it? Thank a lawyer. Didn't get screwed when you bopught your house.......?

I'm biased though, about a third of my income is derived from law firms.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your also right Dancer. People take lawyers for granted and then smear the entire profession by the actions of a few.

What would we think of any profession/line of work if we held them to the same standard we hold lawyers to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your also right Dancer. People take lawyers for granted and then smear the entire profession by the actions of a few.

What would we think of any profession/line of work if we held them to the same standard we hold lawyers to?

Well, if we held doctors to the same level of standards that we do lawyers... we'd have pretty lousy doctors! ;)

In any case, bashing lawyers isn't really my thing. They serve an important function in society, but one that does require as high an ethical standard as almost any other you could name. Besides, no sense bashing family...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawyers help lots of Canadians make money. Got a union,got a contract raise? Thank a lawyer. Own a company that merged and increased in value because of it? Thank a lawyer. Didn't get screwed when you bopught your house.......?

I'm biased though, about a third of my income is derived from law firms.......

Try using spell check, M. Dancer

I have to argue this, I have known many business agents WITHOUT degree's. They are the ones who negotiate; they are the ones that spend the many hours writing out the contracts, and looking to fill the gaps in, for the needs of unions.

Lawyer's are used to check the language (2-8 hour reviews) then poof the contract is done.

I am not knocking lawyer's they spend their time in school; as far as I am concerned it is like a sentence to spend 7-10 years in school.

The only problem I have with lawyers is when they being to work as crown attorney's. They become lazy on of the backs of the tax payers, and they FORGET what it is like to work for yourself in a private practice. Collecting a regular paycheck is just that easy when you have a guaranteed income as a CROWN. I recall sitting in a lawyer's office and she called a crown and asked, "HOW IS IT IN THE LAND OF A REGULAR PAYCHECK?"

There are several lawyers that I know that have been sued who do not work for the province but for them self.

Accountability is important, once a lawyer becomes a crown, there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Heck if a crown were to get sued, the provinces pick up the tab from what I understand, then it is an all out COVER-UP.

Remiel

post Today, 07:43 PM

Well, if we held doctors to the same level of standards that we do lawyers... we'd have pretty lousy doctors! wink.gif

In any case, bashing lawyers isn't really my thing. They serve an important function in society, but one that does require as high an ethical standard as almost any other you could name. Besides, no sense bashing family...

Remiel - Doctor's bury their mistakes. Dead people can not talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remiel:Well, if we held doctors to the same level of standards that we do lawyers... we'd have pretty lousy doctors

Many of us would be shot on our first visit. I'd rather deal with the Sopranos than the lawyers. They are likely more honest and a heck of a lot cheaper. Plus is is the chance of them getting busted for their crimes where there is none with lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few things that stuck out about this oath. I want to attempt to discuss the oath itself instead of just being a cranky ass. Here goes.

1) The oath just sounds like a 12" extended version of the American presidential oath of entering office -- with an extra break and an attempt at modern day sampling tossed into the mix. [it seems like somebody either hit the punch-in button too many times by mistake or needs to learn how to splice tape properly. I am not too sure which.]

2) "I will not seek to destroy anyone's property." seems oddly out of place to me.

My first thought was "Yeah! Now we are talking!" but the statement seems unnecessary. The oath may as well contain "I will not run red lights nor evade taxes nor litter nor leave my horse untethered on the street." Pardon my sarcasm but my point is that it is a statement to respect one particular law of which there are many others.

Also, the statement sounds quite simple [in fact, I would say that it is close to being sufficient as an entire summary of all law, however, that is for a different discussion and not this one] but acting upon it is not -- it is defined arbitrarily by "the law" the oath portends to uphold.

I would ask: Is respecting anyone's property on par with "the law" and allegiance to the monarch? is it distinct from them?? In our current State of affairs, I would say "No, it is not on par. It is quite subordinate." despite my desire for it to reign supreme.

3) "I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone," is peculiar.

It sounds like fluff and I genuinely do not know what it means. It makes me ask: In practical terms, what is "the law" that leaves it open to being perverted by one person?

As an aside, this is quoted from the OP article of the current Photos of Injured Iraqi Released thread:

Six of the seven defendants were cleared of all charges. The seventh, Corporal Donald Payne, became the first member of the UK military to plead guilty to a war crime when he admitted one charge of inhumane treatment. He was cleared of manslaughter and perverting the course of justice.
The Guardian

I am curious to know exactly what that guy allegedly did.

4) "So help me God." is intriguing -- not that I mind.

In general, I believe the oath should be simplified to:

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So... help me, God?

----

Guy and Geo,

about the plagiarism, I hope you did not think I was part of the Children of Satan club, did you?!?!? Heh heh.

All I did was highlight some random text and do an internet search thusly:

"The crime of fraud is a psychological consequence of the offer, made by the sect," -- not difficult. Often, you get more focussed results if you place quotation marks around your highlighted text in the search form box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to apologize to FTA for that crack about doctors and lawyers. He specifically stated that he wanted serious debate, not jokes.

That being said, my first instinct is to say that doctors generally areheld to a higher standard than lawyers. To my knowledge, there is no real equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath for lawyers, and while a lawyer is often task with keeping someones property or security intact, people are much less likely to die if they screw up.

I think Charles' assessment is good. An oath should not have questionable add-ons which do not fully compliment the purpose of the oath. In this I refer to the sentence on property, which as Charles already stated, is really out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) "I will not seek to destroy anyone's property." seems oddly out of place to me.

My first thought was "Yeah! Now we are talking!" but the statement seems unnecessary. The oath may as well contain "I will not run red lights nor evade taxes nor litter nor leave my horse untethered on the street." Pardon my sarcasm but my point is that it is a statement to respect one particular law of which there are many others.

Also, the statement sounds quite simple [in fact, I would say that it is close to being sufficient as an entire summary of all law, however, that is for a different discussion and not this one] but acting upon it is not -- it is defined arbitrarily by "the law" the oath portends to uphold.

I would ask: Is respecting anyone's property on par with "the law" and allegiance to the monarch? is it distinct from them?? In our current State of affairs, I would say "No, it is not on par. It is quite subordinate." despite my desire for it to reign supreme.

Perhaps the property reference is an acknowledgement of the existence of private property itself. Since it's not enshrined in the Charter, for some reason, perhaps the Law Society of AB decided to make it more than a tacit recognition. Dunno, maybe that's stupid...I'm not a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear ScottSA,

Perhaps the property reference is an acknowledgement of the existence of private property itself. Since it's not enshrined in the Charter, for some reason, perhaps the Law Society of AB decided to make it more than a tacit recognition.
I believe that you are right, and certainly not stupid. When I joined the Guardian Angels (Calgary), we were given a bit of training in the 'rights of citizen's arrest'. As it turns out, an 'attack on someone's person or property' are both indictable offences, for which a citizen can arrest someone (provided they have witnessed it...etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I promised in another thread to find and reproduce the oath that I took as a lawyer in Alberta. I figured it made sense to put it in a topic of it's own. I'll leave it to someone else to start the discussion based on the content of the oath itself.

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God.

FTA

That sounds like a very appropriate oath to me. Frivilous suits are a major problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I promised in another thread to find and reproduce the oath that I took as a lawyer in Alberta. I figured it made sense to put it in a topic of it's own. I'll leave it to someone else to start the discussion based on the content of the oath itself.

I, [insert name of lawyer], of the City of [insert place of residence], in the Province of Alberta, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, that I will, as a barrister and solicitor, conduct all causes and matters faithfully and to the best of my ability. I will not seek to destroy anyone's property. I will not promote suits upon frivolous pretenses. I will not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things will conduct myself truly and with integrity. I will uphold and maintain the sovereign's interests and that of my fellow citizens according to the law in force in Alberta. So help me God.

FTA

How can you trust a lawyer who don't even understand he just swore to be a slave of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11.; Who all the decenters claim is just a figerhead in Canada and has no powers. The oath demonstrates Canada is not a sovereign democratic government; as nobody in authority swear to uphold and obay the constitution ; but the MASONS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try using spell check, M. Dancer

I have to argue this, I have known many business agents WITHOUT degree's. They are the ones who negotiate; they are the ones that spend the many hours writing out the contracts, and looking to fill the gaps in, for the needs of unions.

Lawyer's are used to check the language (2-8 hour reviews) then poof the contract is done.

I am not knocking lawyer's they spend their time in school; as far as I am concerned it is like a sentence to spend 7-10 years in school.

The only problem I have with lawyers is when they being to work as crown attorney's. They become lazy on of the backs of the tax payers, and they FORGET what it is like to work for yourself in a private practice. Collecting a regular paycheck is just that easy when you have a guaranteed income as a CROWN. I recall sitting in a lawyer's office and she called a crown and asked, "HOW IS IT IN THE LAND OF A REGULAR PAYCHECK?"

There are several lawyers that I know that have been sued who do not work for the province but for them self.

Accountability is important, once a lawyer becomes a crown, there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

Heck if a crown were to get sued, the provinces pick up the tab from what I understand, then it is an all out COVER-UP.

Remiel - Doctor's bury their mistakes. Dead people can not talk.

No ACCOUNTABILITY- how is articulating students at the law societys supposed to find lawyers guilty of offences and then hope to become one themselves?. I have complained to the law society of a lawyer colaberating to withould evidence in fixing a court case and all they say is that until a judge rules they did something wrong they will do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...