Faulty oaths

Dear sir:
It is a very interesting fact that the federal ministers of Canada don’t use their full names on their oaths!
If a person’s name that appears on an oath is not the same name as that on the birth certificate, then there is no continuation of evidence that ties the two names together.
There must be a continuation of evidence present between the name that is on the birth certificate of the individual and the name that appears on the oath. The obvious one is that both should be the same to avoid any ambiguity.
There is a maxim (maxims are brief statements of self-evident truth that control courts, legislatures, and every consideration of mankind that seeks what is fair and best for all) that states, “A thing similar is not exactly the same.”
When the continuation of evidence is broken between the names (i.e., the names are not the same), then there is no legal obligation or responsibility any more and the oath is void because the rule is violated.
In a game of play, when a rule is violated, the game stops, then correction and restitution/penalty take place.
Everyone who took an oath may recall the statement, “Please state your full name” (that “full name” being the name on the birth certificate).
The premier of Ontario is exempt from this stating of his full name on his oaths, according to the Cabinet office. This exemption would indicate that the same rules don’t apply to the premier as to the rest of us.
In the field of law, a comma can make the difference between freedom and jail, so to be exact, precise is utmost importance. “Guilty” individuals were set free in the past because of a “technicality.”
The word “technicality” is the common term for the lack of the continuation of evidence.
Would the politicians take their oaths again, with their full names as the rest of us?
It is the responsibility of every one of us to bring wrongdoings to the attention of the authorities, so correction may follow. That should include the authorities themselves.
Andrew Szell
Fort Frances, Ont.