If you are just starting out, you should probably look at my introductory document which summarizes the sovereign citizen ideas and links to many of its favorite theories,
Shortlink to this blog post: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2
Claimed: All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH’
Here’s the TL;DR: Because, they say,
(1) the US declared bankruptcy (during the Depression when we went off the gold standard) and
(2) thus if it ever was a nation it is no longer; and therefore
(3) all court proceedings are really commercial in nature and about getting money to pay the bankruptcy off (or the King, it depends on your theory) and because no lawyer ever acknowledges the truth of this proposition
(4) therefore all lawyers have taken a secret oath not to say anything about it.
Yes, a secret held by all 1 million plus lawyers in the US.
Or you cold just start with “no lawyer ever acknowledges “the truth” because it isn‘t the truth.
And the author of this explanation says he has “no known source” for the assertion. Really.
OK well we:
(1) did not declare bankruptcy.
None of the documents cited do that, they just take us off the gold standard;
(2) even if we had, being bankrupt does not change the sovereign status of a nation;
(3) I cannot even begin to address the assertion because the premises are false and it makes no sense at all that criminal and civil lawsuits would become financial transactions somehow;
(4) Really? No source and an oath that is kept secret perfectly by more than a million people in the US alone?
Where’s my magic wand we need An Unbreakable Vow to get to that…!!
Many of the theories used tend to involve a wide range of interlocking — and down right weird — ideas. They don’t really stand up to logical analysis, but they do tend to interlock to support each other, So where to start with any one of them is difficult because it will eventually rely on some other, rather equally loony idea….and then the problem is compounded because there is no single “authority” you can look to to see what the”official story” is…in order to pursue the philosophies and contentions eventually I simply resorted to looking a number of sites and trying to pick one or two sites and ideas that seemed to be referred to often, and the site http://www.apfn.org came to be a touchstone as it collected more than half a dozen of these ‘ideas’. I am sure there are many and many many many different explanations for each contention, but let us go with this one.
(title is an active link)
The sovereigns really don’t like lawyers and judges. Really really. Now this kind of claim, a secret oath, cannot really be disproven; and its not something regarding which there will ever be a court case. If there is no Oath no one can file a real complaint that won’t be dismissed out of hand; and if there is an Oath, of course the cabal will suppress any inquiry into it…but logic and reason and some facts will help us discern the reality. This wandering web site covers a lot of theory they promote far beyond ‘secret oaths’….and the ‘bar’ is integral to that, but they just don’t want to acknowledge their ‘facts’ about the bar are wrong. So let’s start with this one, copied in red from the site and big letters too:
“BAR” stands for “British Accreditation Research”
Gosh, no it doesn’t. I’m so sorry. No such organization exists nor can any address for it be unearthed. It is made up of whole cloth. No British Accredited Registry either. And for later reference there is no “Lawyers Guild of Great Britain” either despite one fool having sued it! These oft-cited organizations on which a whole scaffold of conspiracies are founded simply do not exist.
In the U.S. Lawyers belong to their State Bar Association, a corporation set up by law in most states, or by a rule promoted by their supreme court or a state created judicial panel of some sort… the Bar Association in any state is not owned by any other Bar Association anywhere.
The American Bar Association is a trade association or professional group for lawyers who are not obliged to join; about 1/3 of U.S. lawyers join.Therefore, 2/3 do not join it.
The International Bar Association is headquartered in London and was founded in 1947. So it’s hard to see why or how our lawyers, who don’t have to join the IBA in any event, are somehow beholden to the Queen. The IBA doesn’t own any Bar Associations.
But let’s start with BAR, or as we properly say it, bar:
“The origin of the term bar is from the barring furniture dividing a medieval European courtroom, similarly as the origin of the term bank for the location of financial transactions in medieval Europe. In the USA, Europe and many other countries referring to the law traditions of Europe, the area in front of the barrage is restricted to participants in the trial: the judge or judges, other court officials, the jury (if any), the lawyers for each party, the parties to the case, and witnesses giving testimony. The area behind the bar is open to the public.
(Garner, Bryan, ed. (2004). Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. pp. 157–8. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.)
This restriction is enforced in nearly all courts. In most courts, the bar is represented by a physical partition: a railing or barrier that serves as a bar. (Walker, David (1980). Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford University Press. pp. 112, 123. ISBN 0-19-866110-X.)
Admission to the Bar – The procedure that governs the authorization of attorneys to practice law before the state and federal courts.
The Free Dictionary; downloaded 5/23/2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Admitted+to+the+bar
Admission to the Bar Law Legal Definition. Admission to the Bar means the permission given to a lawyer to practice law under a particular court system. The permission is given by a court that functions under the court system in which a lawyer intents to practice.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admission-to-the-bar/ downloaded 5/23/2017
The call to the bar is a legal term of art in most common law jurisdictions where persons must be qualified to be allowed to argue in court on behalf of another party and are then said to have been “called to the bar” or to have received a “call to the bar”. “The bar” is now used as collective noun for barristers, but literally referred to the wooden barrier in old courtrooms, which separated the often crowded public area at the rear from the space near the judges reserved for those having business with the Court. Barristers would sit or stand immediately behind it, facing the judge, and could use it as a table for their briefs.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_the_bar downloaded 5/13/2017
Admission to the Bar is the term for being admitted to membership of the Bar Association, allowing one so admitted to practice law, symbolically to enter the barrage as an attorney representing a party or parties to a case.
“The word “barrister” shows us much more clearly the etymology of this phrase, as barrister … is derived from the old French barre or Latin barra, meaning “bar” … a reference to the wooden bar or barrier that commonly stood near the front of the courtroom at the ancient Inns of Court in London, used by the English and Welsh legal profession to admit newcomers into their ranks. A barrier, or bar, separated “benchers” from the main hall; students who had attained a certain level of expertise and standing were then “called to the bar” to participate in the Inn’s moot court exercises.
“By the early 1600s, however, “bar” referred mainly to the bar in courthouses that separated the officers of the law (judges, counsel, bailiffs, etc.) from those not admitted into the legal profession or otherwise a party. Besides having a symbolic function, this might also have had a practical benefit as it separated the (sometimes raucous) spectators from those conducting and participating in the business of the court. To disbar, then, was to remove someone from the ability to come to the bar (or within the bar, … Bar eventually became synonymous with the place where cases were argued in court, and eventually with the court itself and those admitted to practice. Its modern meaning typically references formal admission to the profession of law, popularly known as “passing” or being “admitted” to the bar. The “bar” today, as used in the United States, does not reference the physical separation in courtrooms (which typically still exists in some form) but rather is used as a collective noun to refer to all the members of the legal profession in a specific jurisdiction (e.g., “the Massachusetts bar”).
The Origins of “Passing the Bar” Posted July 17, 2014 by Ian C. Pilarczyk
Well… on with the Conspiracy Anyway…
To start, instead of talking about the Secret Lawyers Oath, the author takes us into a lengthy explanation of how the courts have been allegedly transformed, but I think we’ll start with the Oath part. I am sure this will make perfect sense, and if it doesn’t it will be quite useful in measuring the power of his argument anyway.
[Note: these are my own comments] , the plain as well as the bold portion is from the APFN site. ( )
It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy.This seems to make sense after read[ing] about Mr. Sweet’s CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE
[Note: I have not read and will not do that reading…there is no factual support offered]
[Note: “The alleged bankruptcy” is addressed in another blog.]
….There is more to it. Not only do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings
[Note: In this particular fiction it is the contention that every court case is somehow about “The Bankruptcy.” In another fiction all property and taxes are for the King...pay attention and don’t get confused! I have no idea how the King benefits from court cases in the US but it must be true because they say it is…right?]
In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than [sic] there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That’s why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will say, “It’s not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can’t give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.”
Yep he really said that, and — with no source he is aware of — wants you to believe it.
Now I happen have a couple relatives who are lawyers, and of course they out and out lied to me, as did my best friend of 48 years who is also a lawyer; and they said the idea that everyone takes some secret oath is um, politely speaking, product of the male bovine intestinal tract.
They, like every other lawyer, keeps this a secret, which make me want to ask how the author’s unknown source knows it, but hey he heard it from somewhere he just doesn’t know where. Of course they are trying to imply that his source is a lawyer, the only one of millions to have leaked the story.
As of April 2011, there were 1,225,452 licensed attorneys in the United States.
( “ABA Market Research Department”. Market Research Department, as reported at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneys_in_the_United_States#cite_note-2, American Bar Association. 2011-04-xx. Retrieved 2012-10-04.)
And every single one of them is keeping this secret, it has never leaked out, no TV or Internet Wikileak event, nothing. But yah, a million lawyers are gonna all keep that secret with no leaks. Which has no known source. But why would the author need a source when he has an important fact like that… it just.stands.to.reason all the lawyers have this secret oath, no? Because there is this bankruptcy; and all court actions are to pay for that, so obviously since it is never ever said in court, it must be because there is a secret oath not to say it.
Or perhaps the easy explanation for why the bankruptcy is never mentioned is because there is no bankruptcy, the court’s cases are not all about bankruptcy, and there is no secret oath...
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins Changed Everything
The APFN site also offers us a new view of the courts, based upon some audio tape the author listened to, and what he tells us seems to be
“altered and enhanced significantly” from that tape, itself made “by a private non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, pursuant to any real or imaginary statutory regulations.”
Whatever that means.
Then he says:
Let’s get right to the point. The courts only recognize two classes of people in the United States today. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. The concept and status of DEBTORS AND CREDITORS is very important for you to understand. Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else they might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court – IT IS AN EQUITY COURT, administering commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as referred to in the Constitution of the U.S. or any of the legal documents before 1938. All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in Erie RR. v Thompkins.
Permit me to pause and scratch my head, since I am now told all courts are Equity courts, whereas I was told by sovereigns that they are all Admiralty courts and of course they insist that our courts they are all non-judicial and administrative courts (which means they can be neither Equity courts nor courts of Admiralty.)
I also don’t get how there are only debtors and creditors either …but it seems obvious that a writer who can find, based on no known source this vast legal society conspiracy can equally readily find the courts are transformed for no apparent reason. The nation being bankrupt– even if it were — just wouldn’t change the nature of the courts but hey…this really isn’t about logic, it’s about claims.
Enough — So what does that court decision say that transforms everything?
“Plaintiff was severely injured in Pennsylvania. While walking on defendant’s right of way along a much-used path at the end of the crossties of its main track, he came into collision with an open door swinging from the side of a car in a train going in the opposite direction. Having been warned by whistle and headlight, he saw the locomotive approaching and had time and space enough to step aside and so avoid danger. To justify his failure to get out of the way, he says that, upon many other occasions he had safely walked there while trains passed.
“Invoking jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania, brought this suit to recover damages against defendant, a New York corporation, in the federal court for the southern district of that State [New York]. The issues were whether negligence of defendant was a proximate cause of his injuries and whether negligence of plaintiff contributed. He claimed that, by hauling the car with the open door, defendant violated a duty to him. The defendant insisted that it violated no duty and that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by his own negligence. The jury gave him a verdict on which the trial court entered judgment; the circuit court of appeals affirmed.”
[So the railroad claimed that under Pennsylvania law he was trespassing and they weren’t liable; the federal judge decided under ‘common law principles’ that a long established footpath made him a non-trespasser and that the federal court wasn’t bound to apply Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court disagreed and said state law did apply.]
…Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State…There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State, whether they be local in their nature or “general,” be they commercial law, or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts…. the[Supreme] Court does not hold unconstitutional § 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 or any other Act of Congress. It merely declares that, by applying the doctrine of…[the] case [Swift v.Tyson], rights which are reserved by the Constitution to the several States have been invaded. P. 304 U. S. 79.
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S 64 (1938)
Okay. Our site sovereign explains what HE thinks that means:
What was the effect and the significance of the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case decision of 1938?
The significance is that since the Erie decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers (who were members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain) created, formed and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain. Since the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case was decided; the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same.
Of course that decision says nothing of the sort.
For the moment ignore the claims about the nature of the bar association. It actually says that Federal courts, when ruling on state issues, must follow state law. Period.
Nothing about not citing cases before 1939 — except one case, Swift v. Tyson, could no longer be applied, it is overruled.You can still cite it as ong as you point out it’s been overruled.
This did lead to the development of a “Uniform Commercial Code” in the late 1940’s so that businesses would know the rules in every state — they would be essentially the same if every state adopted the UCC. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the UCC is not a Federal law and it is not a law in every jurisdiction; and the states that did adopt it sometimes changed it, so it’s not uniform everywhere. And it just applies to commercial and business transactions anyway. It does not MAKE court cases commercial or business transactions.
To the sovereign crackpot, this is how a government becomes a corporation…I know, it makes little sense no matter how hard you try.
There’s a chain of assumptions that start with misconceptions and heap assumptions and misinterpretation and untruth onto them until you have no idea what they are saying…somehow this case which resulted eventually in a fairly uniform set of rules for business disputes across the country, is the end of our civilization …and now ALL law is Uniform Commercial Code, instead of Constitution and statute. If you pile enough official sounding words in your made up explanation that makes it real.
He goes on to say:
In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now, this doesn’t mean the bankruptcy wasn’t implemented before 1938 with the Erie RR v. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January, 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as the “The Banking Holiday,” and proceeded in pulling in gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.
….Since the United States Corporation, having established it[s] headquarters within the District of Columbia, [Note: probably a reference to the Act of 1871] declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn’t have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: The writer has taken the liberty of using the term “Mother Corporation” to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States. It is my understanding that the States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal Government has taken control of her “Creators,” the States.)
What we see here is the intersection of several nonsense theories.
However, Declaring bankruptcy would not change us from a sovereign to a corporation, so he contends the U.S. already is a corporation …but going off the gold standard is not declaring bankruptcy. The US has not declared bankruptcy and if it did this wild theory wouldn’t be the result anyway.
That ruling was significant to lawyers and judges and to business especially, because it meant they could not control what law would apply to them if they ended up in court. They would have to research the law in each of the now fifty states to see what might apply depending on where their customers were. That was a problem.
But for the life of me I cannot see how it can be claimed to have overturned the role of the courts or changed their basic character. It is literally made up.
However, this claim goes on to say that because the US is bankrupt and oh, the Chamber of Commerce recommended the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to be adopted in the states, commerce now rules the nation and its courts.
And apparently the states are no longer sovereign because they adopted a uniform business law. Imagine what would happen if they adopted uniform animal care laws!! We’d all be cats!
We are all commercial entities as is our government. Palpably absurd…and it does not follow logically from any of the premises; and you can’t find words anywhere in the decision to make it mean what they say.
= More Blogs by Philipem 1000 =
= The US and the States =
(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )
= The Courts =