What is the significance of raising one&#39;s right hand before making an oath or affirmation? It is common in many jurisdictions to raise one's right hand before making an oath or affirmation. What is the origin and meaning of such a practice? This can help answer similar questions. For example, are there religious connotations connected to raising one's right hand? If so, would it be sending mixed signals to raise one's right hand when simply affirming before giving testimony, as opposed to the legally equivalent-but theologically different practice of swearing an oath before testimony? Knowing the origin of raising the right hand will clarify. Note: To confirm this question was on-topic, I first asked here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/375785/law-english-or-somewhere-else-where-should-these-two-questions-go
In Western law this surely derives from Biblical precedent. See for example Genesis 14:22, or Exodus 6:8. Some other times when hands are lifted up in the Bible, it's an expression of power. These concepts are linked in that an oath involves appealing to divine power to witness what is promised (and to punish the speaker if they break it). The story that it comes from forcing witnesses or the accused to display brands is false. While branding was used historically to mark certain criminals, these marks were not often on the palm of the hand, but could be on the cheeks or chest or elsewhere. Courts have never asked witnesses to remove their shirts while taking an oath. Even in the era when branding was used, checking for the marks would not be applied to all witnesses, but perhaps just to the accused. In contemporary practice, raising the hand is optional, and the oath or affirmation is taken as &quot;good&quot; if the court is satisfied that the witness is taking it seriously. Raising the hand might be seen as a gesture of respect for the law and not necessarily any particular religious tradition. Raising the hand while affirming is not unusual, nor even a mixed signal: affirmation arose because of Quakers wishing to observe the Biblical command &quot;swear not at all&quot;.
It is Latin - "through". It means that someone is signing on behalf of the company, and is not generally required but can be printed explicitly as evidence that the person signing purports to be authorised to do so.
The use of the word counsel for barristers has a long history. It was used in England before the modern legal profession developed. Baker, Counsellors and barristers: an historical study (1969) traces homo consiliarius back to the 13th century plea rolls: The sum of [a pleader or counsellor's] functions may be termed &quot;counselling&quot; in its widest sense, and the subject of the present study must be what the plea rolls call homo consiliarius, the counsellor. Even this compendious name can mislead. It eventually became synonymous with &quot;barrister,&quot; in the sense of &quot;jurisconsult,&quot; while some of the counselling came in fact to be done by attorneys and solicitors. Sense 8(a) of counsel (n.) in the OED (&quot;A body of legal advisers, engaged in the direction or conduct of a cause&quot;) is dated back to the Confessio Amantis (1393): Help, that I hadde counseil here Upon the trouthe of my matere. Sense 8(b) (&quot;A single legal adviser; a counsellor-at-law, advocate, or barrister&quot;) is first quoted in 1709, but seems also to cover sense 8(a)'s quotation of Greene's coney-catching pamphlets (1591), by distinguishing between counsel and attorney: [He] hath his mind so full of cares to see his counsell and to plie his Atorney. As barristers came to replace the serjeants at law, the association of counsel with barristers may have become entrenched with the appointment of Sir Francis Bacon as the first King's Counsel (1603). According to Holdsworth, A history of English law (1924), vol 6, p 472: It soon became clear that the king's attorney and solicitor could not by themselves do all the work which their office imposed upon them. It is to this cause that we must ascribe the rise of a body of &quot;king's learned counsel,&quot; who are the ancestors of our modern king's counsel. It would seem from D'Ewes that a body of persons so designated was known at the very beginning of Elizabeth's reign [1558 – 1603].
One can find contradictory claims out there. Here is an English version of the marriage law. There is a surprising amount of legal rigamarole (in Norway, as well) pertaining to clearing "impediments". Assuming that the parties have done their part, then we move to Chapter 4. Article 16: Marriage may take place before a minister of the church, a representative of a registered religious organization empowered to perform such ceremonies, cf. Article 17, or before a civil official so empowered So turning to Article 17: Religious solemnization of marriage shall be performed by the ministers of the National Church, and priests or other representatives of registered religious organizations in Iceland who have been empowered to perform such ceremonies by the Ministry of Justice and Ecclesiastical Affairs and that is now part of the Ministry of the Interior. I can't find any indication that ULC has been approved. There are 49 religions officially listed by Statistics Iceland, including Siðmennt, a secular humanist organization which gained official status on May 3rd, 2013 when the organization was officially registered as a secular life stance organization under a law passed in the Icelandic Parliament on January 30th of that year. A formal ceremony was held by the Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson who had strongly supported our cause, to mark this historical event. As a result, Siðmennt gained the same legal and funding status as religious life stance organizations in Iceland. Weddings conducted by Siðmennt celebrants since then are legal and couples no longer have to go to government offices for that purpose. In light of the fact that Siðmennt is officially listed and ULC is not listed, I would conclude that you did not accidentally marry anyone, even if they had dealt with the impediments.
It is the duty of the witness to give the testimony, no matter what their nationality is. As a witness, a German citizen is not different from a French, Uruguayan, or even a stateless. The only letter the judge will usually give them in addition to a verbal thanks is a formal letter recognizing that they have, on suchandsuch day(s), been called as a witness to the court and appeared. This is usually given to any witness and pretty much a form. It does serve as evidence for example in cases of absence from work - and you are entitled to the losses you incurred for appearing in court if you formally request them. It isn't forbidden to request a different letter from a judge, but they might not give such an extraordinary letter of appreciation, because that might taint the case: it could raise the question if the testimony was bought with or made to gain such a letter.
The terminology used may vary some by jurisdiction, but in many it will be said that Bob provoked the confrontation, or that Bob was the aggressor, or that Bob was engaged in a felony and so cannot claim self-defense. This fact patter is highly unlikely to arise in real lie, because if Bob has even a half-competent lawyer, the issue of self-defense, sure to fail, will not be raised. Doing so only wastes the court's time, and may well make them think worse of Bob, which may cost him. In less open-and-shut cases, the general rule is that one who provokes a confrontation, or who is the aggressor, may not claim self-defense. But the exact rule varies by jurisdiction, and the line will be drawn in different ways in different jurisdictions. In some one who seeks a confrontation may be denied a right of self-defense.
Lawyers cannot act for their client without instructions. &quot;May I take instructions&quot; is a request by the barrister to have a conversation in confidence with their client about what to do next or how to respond to the court. Sometimes this is just a momentary discussion, but if necessary, this can even result in the court standing down for a short break, or fully adjourning to another day. It is not a euphemism used to disparage the client.
Unless you received an order from the court prohibiting contact, it might be legal; but it's probably not the best idea. Let the lawyers handle it Attorneys have far better, more effective means of dealing with this situation than the course of action you describe. Lawyers have productive tools to accomplish the job and they know how to use them. For example, assume the best-case-scenario results from your idea and you get the other side to admit their affidavit is fallacious in some way. "Aha!" you shout. "Success! Daylight!" But then what? It's not on record. You can't testify to the admission because that's hearsay. Now imagine they next share this information about your little conversation with the counterparty that had them sign the affidavit in the first place. After first being alerted of your concerns, they both now act in concert to shore up their stories and you never see that "daylight" again. Contrast that outcome with one where your guy or gal's attorney deposes the witness under oath, gets them to concede to your version of the facts then introduces the deposition as favorable evidence at trial. That's a much better outcome for "your side." Wouldn't you agree? Be wary of unintended consequences Generally speaking, such direct contact between the parties is often problematic and rarely helpful. (Except, in some cases, when direct contact between the parties leads to a negotiated settlement. Which happens far less often than the direct contact going sideways making the situation even more intractable.) Before you launch off on your own and do something that might be counterproductive. First, identify the areas of the affidavit that you think are inaccurate. Give that information to the party you support, then have them run it by their attorney to figure out the best way to handle the situation.