The Oath v. Oath Jurisprudence is understood by any Court Clerk and we used this jurisprudence to assist a client charged with a double assault charge. Did you know Law graduates are Court Clerks; Clerks of the Court who can commission documents? What is the difference in obligation between Officer of the Court and Clerk of the Court? They carry the same burden in terms of obligation? Ray from Ozark or the King from Goat Island in the West Indies says he wants to be accepted by society and wants his people to go to school but he does not believe his people should own a home or help people with their education even though his demand that they attend school says they will know how to buy a house and be able to reiterate the Magna Carta. OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D). 2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of R v. W(D) or the Magna Carta as it is rather evidently. It is not new jurisprudence. It is based on the same principle as R v. Legere(1995). See this analysis again in Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB). This is summarised again in the following. The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the North American legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877): Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette's case) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: "Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough," as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B

The Oath v. Oath Jurisprudence is understood by any Court Clerk and we used this jurisprudence to assist a client charged with a double assault charge. 

 Did you know Law graduates are Court Clerks; Clerks of the Court who can commission documents?  What is the difference in obligation between Officer of the Court and Clerk of the Court? They carry the same burden in terms of obligation? Ray from Ozark or the King from Goat Island in the West Indies says he wants to be accepted by society and wants his people to go to school but he does not believe his people should own a home or help people with their education  even though his demand that they attend school says they will know how to buy a house and be able to reiterate the Magna Carta. OATH vs. Oath Jurisprudence is much like Legere and R v. W(D). 2+2, -1+5,3+1 and 7-3 all add up to 4. It is Another way to communicate the jurisprudence of R v. W(D) or the Magna Carta as it is rather evidently. It is not new jurisprudence. It is based on the same principle as R v. Legere(1995). See this analysis again in Sklar v. Borys, 1917 CanLII 121 (SK QB). This is summarised again in the following. The Oath vs. Oath jurisprudence is seen in the North American  legal tradition dating back to 1877 in the case of Anderson v. Titmas(1877): Young v. Kershaw (1899), 81 L.T. 531 (which was followed in Varette's case) Smith L.J., stated at p. 532: "Further, it would only amount to oath against oath, and that is not enough," as was pointed out in Anderson v. Titmas (1877), 36 L.T. 711, by Huddleston, B