Are Statutes Laws? Are Codes? What About Regulations?

Shortlink to this blog: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

To learn some of the basics about the Sovereign Citizens
and similar movements start at  http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

To learn about Sources of Law  http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF

In this blog…

What is Law; What are Laws?

What does “Law” Mean?

The Rule of Law is More Than Just a Rule

The Definition of Statute

Court Cases About Statutes

Sovereign Citizen Arguments Against Statutes

Consent of the Governed

Who Makes Laws?

Legislative Powers

The Power of the Congress to pass LAWS

State Power to make LAW via Statutes and Ordinances

Powers of Sovereignty in States

What About Codes?

What About Regulations?

 

Over time people have challenged the credibility of my arguments, and the credibility of many different governmental actions, because they are based on statutory provisions, that is, on statutes. This challenge takes the simple form of this statement:

“Those are statutes and statutes are not laws.”

This concept is widely circulated and fervently argued by those who need to believe it and never more than by sovereign citizens. If you ever point to a law they don’t like they will likely call it a statute and say it is not a law.

After all, the basic underlying theory of the sovereign citizens and their freeman on the land fellow travelers is that they are only subject to that which they have agreed. They undoubtedly have not agreed to the enacted statutes of most legislative bodies. At any rate it is convenient to say “statutes are not laws,” when you don’t want to obey them.

For many, they say “laws must be voluntary;” and for all, it is much more convenient to be able to claim that the provisions that irk them are voluntary rules, infringements on their rights, optional for them — anything but a law.

As we shall see however if it is voluntary it does not meet the definition of law. And, there is no legal tradition anywhere, any time, by which someone may exempt themselves from to the law.

So they may agree they are bound by, for example, “natural” law, “common” law as they define them (or don’t); but they don’t want other laws (especially written ones, recent ones, and ones they cannot unilaterally change or reject).

Why the Fuss?

People will tell you a statute is not a law because they don’t want to be bound by statutes, nor by governments. If Statutes are not law they don’t have to be obeyed.

They will say statutes are voluntary or a matter of contract or some other gibberish. They will claim the state or the U.S. is a corporation and you must contract with the state if you are to be bound by its laws.

Or they will claim only the Uniform Commercial Code is the law, which of course is commercial contract law enacted by a state, ironically, in a statute!

That’s all nonsense.

Statutes can put you in jail for life or execute you.

Is that voluntary? Do you contract for prison or death? That alone tells you government is not a business nor a company.

They can’t show any evidence that statutes are not laws. There is no court decision, no law review article, no body of case law, nothing in common law (real or imagined versions) that says it.  There is no real authority in the history or practice of law that supports that idea.

They argue that because consent of the governed is required that means individual consent. But the Founders were practical people doing real government and would have laughed at the notion, or tossed the speaker into a mental institution of the time.

No Court decision says that; no Constitution says it; no Law passed by a legislature says it. Nor does any legal dictionary nor regular dictionary say it. Unanimous consent in any large group of people is impossible. We didn’t create a government based on a “rule by impossibility,” but based on the Rule of Law.

So they fall back on bare pronouncements or claim superior unwritten law and then they demand you prove that they are laws. Of course it’s not for you to prove it since it’s their claim.

But it turns out not so difficult to prove.

Of course they will not accept any amount of proof that they are wrong but in fact they are and it’s quite clear and simple to show it.

First let’s look at what a “law” actually is; then prove that statutes are laws; then we will consider the other attacks upon the law when it takes the form of a Code or Regulation.

What is Law; What are Laws?

What does “Law” Mean?
Law, noun
a (1) :  a binding custom or practice of a community :  a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
(2) :  the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules
(3) :  common law
Mirriam-Webster online accessed 17 Dec 2015
dictionary.reference.com
Law, noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.  Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.
4. a system or collection of such rules
…..
7. an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation, as distinguished from the constitution.
Cambridge Dictionary
Law   noun (rule)

a rule made by a government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules.

Conclusion

A law is a rule that is binding, enforced, and one can be punished for not obeying or may be ordered on threat of punishment to obey.

 

The Rule of Law — More Than Just a Rule

 

My position throughout my blogs is that

  1. Law is made by humans, has always been made by humans, and there is a long history of legal principles and thought which can be found in writing.

  2. Law evolves as societies evolve. Law is not universal it is a product of a particular culture or civilization.
  3. Humans when gathered in any significant number will ALWAYS create governments,
  4. Governments strike the balance between societal needs and individual needs in different ways according to the values of those societies.

The essential tension in every human society is how to balance the freedom of the individual with the needs of the greater society; no perfect balance can ever exist, but each society must and will strike some balance.

Too much for the individual and the society fails; too collective and the people are not served and will ultimately bring it down.

Neither extreme works for long. Both are scary; terms for them might be anarchy on the one hand and fascism on the other. The best results are somewhere in the middle.

In our tradition we have the Rule of Law which is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Indeed we speak of the Rule of Law as being fundamental to our society.

No law passed by a legislature will have unanimous agreement of all humans; and thus no true law could exist by that measure; but lack of laws is anarchy; which means whoever can force others to his will gets his way.

We base the orderly functioning and fundamental justice of our entire society upon the  “Rule of Law;” Laws shield us from others and even from government itself.

The Rule of Law is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
(First Result from googling “What is the Rule of Law”)

Rule of Law Definition:  That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals. 
Duhaime’s Law Dictionary

Without laws we have no effective freedoms.

This is a corollary of the Rule of Law. Without law there is mechanism to protect or enforce freedoms.

The ideal characteristics of a systemic rule of law (not to be achieved perfectly by fallible humans) are:

  • The government and its officials and agents as well as all individuals and private entities are accountable under the law. No one is exempt from the laws.
  • The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
  • The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
  • Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

In OUR legal tradition there is a government to which every person (human being) is subject; and the people collectively exercise power over that government.

We have a written constitution and it is the supreme law of the land.

The legislative function of our governments is that part which is given the power to make law; the judicial has the power to interpret the law, to say what it means, and to apply it to specific cases; and the executive function executes the law, enforces it.

Separation of those powers limits the power of government, in order  to help protect the individual.

 Definition of Statute

They are called statutes, or statute law or statutory law.

In Latin the word began as STATVS* (status) meaning state and evolved to statutem which means “established” as in established law of a state.  The dictionary tells us a statute (or an enactment, or an act) is a law. It is passed by a legislature. And the very words “legislate” or “legislature” mean law making.

But they are also called statutes to distinguish legislative law from other kinds of law such as constitutional law, case law, common law.

*In ancient Latin every word is CAPITALIZED for every purpose; in fact there are no small letters, they were invented in the Middle Ages. I mention this because some sovereigns make a claim that capital letters have legal significance and derive that from claims about Roman Law. Obviously that’s nonsense, if all letters are capitals you cannot derive special meaning from capital letters.

dictionary.reference.com

Statutory law, noun

1.  the written law established by enactments expressing the will of the legislature, as distinguished from the unwritten law or common law.   Also called statute law.


When we look to dictionaries, general or legal, every single one says a statute is a law in so many words.

Wexlaw

StatuteA law enacted by a legislative body – such as the United States Congress, or a state senate. Statutes are the primary source of law in the United States, and typically authorize an administrative agency (such as the Federal Communications Commission, or the Securities Exchange Commission) to adopt rules pursuant to the Statute.

Merriam Webster

Statute  1 : a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government

dictionary.com

Statute  noun:
Law;
1. an
enactment made by a legislature and expressed in a formal document.
2.
the document in which such an enactment is expressed.

dictionary.reference.com

Enact, verb (used with object)

 1, to make into an act or statute:
Congress has enacted a new tax law.

 

Enactment noun;

1. the act of enacting.
2. the state or fact of being enacted.
3.something that is enacted; a law or statute.
4.a single provision of a law.

[“an Act of Parliament” would be an enactment by a legislature and an enactment by the legislature is a law.]

Free Dictionary

Statute 

1. A law enacted by a legislature
2. A decree or edict as of a ruler.
 

Legal Dictionary.com  

statute. n. a Federal or state written law enacted by the Congress or state legislature, respectively. Local statutes or laws are usually called “ordinances.”

Merriam Webster

verb: legislate

to make laws
to control, create, or cause (something) by making laws
to perform the function of legislation; specifically:  to make or enact law
to mandate, establish, or regulate by or as if by legislation

nounLegislature

1.  a deliberative body of persons, usually elective, who areempowered to make, change, or repeal the laws of a country or state; the branch of government having the powerto make laws, as distinguished from the executive and judicial branches of government.

 

adjective adverb or verb:
Legislative:
the power to legislate. Legislate (used without object), legislated, legislating, to exercise the function of legislation, to make or enact laws.

Conclusions

  • The legislative power is the power to make law.
  • It is exercised by the legislative branch.
  • And its legislative enactments are laws, called statutes.
 

Court Cases About Statutes

The courts have demonstrated that they consider statutes to be laws; indeed they don’t usually bother to say it because it so clearly the case. It is quite rare for a court to rule that a statute is a law because they simply refuse any consideration to the idea that it isn’t. No reputable attorney would even make the argument. Only when sovereigns turn up in court do we hear such nonsense.

Thus I have not found a single simple sentence that so declares it. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing, just that it’s not a simple declarative sentence.

Nothing can be a crime unless there is a law that makes it a crime. In 1908 the U.S. Supreme in the case is Twining v. State clearly showed a state statute is a law:

“…Such an act is made a misdemeanor by a statute of the State, (P.L. 1899, p. 450, at 461), which is as follows:

“Every director, officer, agent or clerk of any trust company who willfully and knowingly subscribes or makes any false statement of facts or false entries in the books … or willfully or knowingly subscribes to or makes any false report, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor and punished accordingly.”
Twining v. State, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

If a statute is not a law how can it make some act a criminal — one for which one can be tried? What can a statute be if it defines crimes, if it is not a law?

 

I did find one comment on a video that said there is a case showing statutes are not laws, citing Flournoy v First National Bank.

But in fact that case is about a statute that was found to be unconstitutional. And it still tells us a statute has the “form and name of law.” The case was to decide how to handle issues that had been dealt with under it before it was declared unconstitutional. In that case the court said:

“”The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is well stated in Volume XI, American Jurisprudence, verbo ‘Constitutional Law,’ Sec. 148, page 827, as follows:

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed…””

Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport 197 La. 1067,1083 (La. 1941)

Well if an unconstitutional statute has “the form and name of law” surely a constitutional one does.

A (constitutional) statute has the “form and name” of law, and (as long as constitutional) it is in reality law. Indeed the opening paragraph in the quote does not say statutes are not law it says that unconstitutional statues are not valid law.

Conclusion

Constitutional statutes are laws; it’s really that simple.

And the Constitution as quoted calls the acts of Congress laws as we shall demonstrate.

 

Sovereign Citizen Arguments Against Statutes

Statutes are not laws because “Law[s] are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.”

 That is a nice idea but it’s not a fact and not found in the study of law.

Again we are talking about humans and a human institution. It is true that in general laws protect rights and freedom because without them it is the domination of the strong. Besides, who but the Courts have the power to decide if a law is protecting rights and freedom?

Law includes the interposition between the powerful and powerless of a mechanism to balance legitimate needs and rights. But law is indeed useless if it is not practical and no quest for perfection is expected. The law is flawed and the courts often say so. They work to limit the damage a flawed law can create but they must defer to the legislature. It is not the courts’ job to change the laws, but to interpret them.

Of course whether a law actually is just or protects rights and freedoms is a matter subject to some opinionated interpretation. So doubtless sovereigns looking at particular laws will divine some injustice and thus invalidate the law in their mind. In fact the Sovereigns want to decide individually and personally whether a law protects. But we know humans will differ in such judgments, and often based on personal interests. It’s not workable. The guy who is hurt by a law will almost always find the law is wrong.

The sovereign also suggest many other ways in which laws and statutes are different — again with no source or authority. These are tablets from the mountain. We are to believe without proof.

“you will not find any statute that calls itself a law, nor any act of Congress.

Maybe you will, maybe you won’t, but so what? You won’t find a horse that calls itself a horse, but that doesn’t make it a llama.

Any law passed by Congress regardless of what it calls itself is a law because in fact the Constitution says it is a law.  See Article I Section 7 where it is explicitly stated that Congress makes Laws.

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law…

There is nothing magical about the word “law” that it must be included in laws. “Act” means the same thing. And “legislation” is the product of a legislature, and is law.

Sovereigns again:

“Law refers to common law. Common law tops any form of legislative statute. Also God’s/natural laws top common law.”

This statement is accompanied as usual with no authority.

And in fact it is simply not true under the Constitution. Our system recognizes the Constitution of the U.S. as Supreme Law so we do not bow to ‘natural law’, whatever it may be. We recognize no law of any kind superior to the Constitution.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”
Article 6  US Constitution

I must point out the sovereign claim is also wrong as to English Common Law, the law of cases, as Parliament can override Common Law at will, by passing a statute that changes the common law.  It is undeniably inferior to statutory law as the King in Parliament is the sovereign and supreme legal authority in that system.

No doubt a statute may take away a common law right, but there is always a presumption that the legislature has no such intention unless it be plainly expressed.”
Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877)

Legislation vs Common Law

It is a well-established principle inherited from British constitutional law that parliament is sovereign or all powerful. … subject to constitutional limitations, it means that in theory parliament can make any law it wants to, even if it is contrary to what most people would regard as their basic rights….

The practical result of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that legislation prevails over common law. If there is a conflict between legislation and the common law, legislation will over-ride the common law. However, that conflict must be clear. There is a presumption that rights under common law continue unless the legislation clearly does away with them.”
Tasmania Law Book Elements of the Criminal Justice System

(See my blog for more about Sources of Law and natural law.)

‘Natural law’  is religiously based and presumes itself to be the highest law anywhere. God has too many spokespersons in the US and we don’t recognize them.

You cannot open a book and find in clear words what natural law says, because it is not written or defined, and as I said those who speak for god give a lot of different answers.

 

Consent of the Governed – Uniform Application of Law

“Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent.”
https://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/statutes-vs-law/

Well, obviously this person is a subscriber to at least parts of the sovereign citizen legends. There is no authority nor any proof offered. Nor can any be found.

No legal tradition, constitutional provision, legal enactment, court decision, nor anything that happened in history is offered to show that it is true. Not even a learned treatise or law review article validates this idea, which is very new in legal terms, not a deep historical viewpoint.

It is simply an opinion stated as fact which first appeared around 1970 not 1790.

In fact sovereignty is a matter of collective, not individual power.

“From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it …and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present ConstitutionEvery State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner … the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

“Dictatorship of the majority” is a valid concern; but in the U.S. the Constitutional protection of the individual and the division of power are restraints on the power of the majority.  Like everything else made by humans it’s not perfect. Ultimately majority rule is a reality in human society unless we prefer dictatorships or oligarchies. Which we sometimes do.

Law is subject to the collective consent of the governed, but no society could exist and no government functions (nor has any, ever) that requires the unanimous consent of every person. Because no law would every receive such unanimous consent.

If it takes 100% consent to make a law apply to everyone then it does not meet the definition of a law; no law will ever get 100% approval of the people. So it will never apply to everyone, and in fact, anyone who doesn’t like this or that law gets to choose not to obey, it’s a recipe for anarchistic chaos. This way of doing things inevitably means that there is in reality no law at all; no law is possible and therefore no government is possible and that is not freedom; it is the opposite of freedom. It is the opposite of the rule of law for sure.

And if a law does not apply to all it is not a law. By definition it is not law if people can exempt themselves from it.

(Exception: laws on very specific topics may by their nature apply to a small scope of people; but all who are similarly situated must be included in the same way.)

Our society has never held individual assent (and certainly not universal assent) as a legal tradition, nor even a possibility, in our nation or national history; and in fact no society or government anywhere at any time in all human history has operated on that principle.

You won’t find any legislative enactment (law or otherwise) that says individual assent is required.

You won’t even find that idea written about before the 1970’s. The idea grew out of speculation by members of the posse comitatus movement which first emerged in 1969.

You won’t find a single court decision that ever said individual assent to the law is required; just the opposite in fact. You will see court cases that explicitly say everyone must obey the law.

Here’s what a court says on this subject; this is case law:

In order for our scheme of ordered liberties to succeed, we must all obey valid laws, even those with which we do not agree; a man cannot exempt himself from the operation of a law simply by declaring that he does not consent to have it apply to him.
City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981

And another court:

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe. …at the end of the day, … sovereign citizens … are subject to both state and federal laws, just like everyone else.
Order, docket entry 102, 2/12/2013, United States v. Kenneth Wayne Leaming, DC WD Washington.

Tellingly, there is not even a process by which one can withhold nor give consent to be ruled by law.

How do we know a sovereign has exempted himself from a law or assented to it? He will tell us when he is arrested. Or he will send in made up paperwork to some public official who he presumes has the authority to record and the obligation to inform every public official everywhere.

“I did not agree to not murder anyone nor to be subject to your system.”

“Oh well off you go then…”

True every rule, every law, doubtless takes away some bit of freedom from someone and limits what they may do; but many laws are enacted precisely to protect the rights of others, to reduce the freedom to impinge on others’ rights.

Without the force of law” there is no law and no value derived from it and no protection by the law.

Laws prohibit theft, pollution of the air and water, sexual crimes, the right to possess and use property and prevent the use of property to the harm of the neighbors. Driver license laws promote safety and protect the right to travel. Zoning laws ensure your neighbor doesn’t start making explosives for his fireworks company next door to you.

No. Courts do not recognize these bold and groundless assertions and do not accept these principles or definitions and do not rule using them. So claiming that they are “right” or “statutes are not laws” is a meaningless exercise when the courts will not rule accordingly.

Who Makes Laws?

Legislative Powers

Legislation refers to the preparation and enactment of laws by a legislative body through its lawmaking process. The legislative power is the power to make laws. It is derived from the Latin, leges, plural meaning “laws.” (lex, singular, legis, genetive, “of or related to law”)

That process is defined in broad strokes by a Constitution.

Legislative power is exercised by the legislative branch. In some places legislative power is shared, for example referendum and initiative are concepts that allow the people to directly legislate or have a veto power over laws enacted by legislatures. But it is the Legislative Branch that makes laws.

 

The Power of the Congress to pass LAWS

But in the case of Congress it is manifestly clear that it has the power to and it does pass LAWS.

Here is what our Constitution says:

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, … it shall become a law …If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Article I Section 7 U.S. Constitution

Legislative enactments by Congress are laws.  The Constitution says so.

The United States Code or USC is a collection and organization of the laws passed by Congress using the Constitutional process. Not every single law passed is in the USC but most of them are especially the criminal ones.

 

State Power to make LAW
via
Statutes and Ordinances

The process of adopting a statute in each state is defined usually in its Constitution. For example, The California Constitution leaves us no doubt in Article IV Section 8(b) (1)

The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill.

So you see legislative authority, the power to make law, is given to the appropriate branch of the government of the state, and in California for the Legislature, it is the power to enact a statute.

It can also be given by state constitution, or by statute, to cities and towns and counties (and also given to the people through referendum and initiative if specified in the state constitution). Those bodies can create law or change law.

Statutes and Ordinances are the laws they create. Ordinance is the usual term by which a law passed by a city, county or other subdivision of the state is known.

Powers of Sovereignty in States

The ability of the legislature to pass statutory law is limited by the U.S. and state Constitutions and in general include the powers recognized as belonging to sovereigns which have not been delegated to Congress.

The Congress has only the specific powers delegated to it by the Constitution but the States and have the powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment. Those include the powers of sovereignty as the States are sovereign.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Amendment X U.S. Constitution

The courts have found the States and the Federal Government are the governing bodies of the sovereign people; the powers granted to the people in that amendment are exercised by the State unless the people in their State Constitution provide otherwise..

“From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it… and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution ….and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution… Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

In the Arizona Constitution we see how counties, cities or other bodies gain authority to make laws, called Ordinances usually.

Arizona Constitution in Art 1 Sec 1 provides:

The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives… The powers of the initiative and the referendum are hereby further reserved to the qualified electors of every incorporated city, town, and county as to all local, city, town, or county matters on which such incorporated cities, towns, and counties are or shall be empowered by general laws to legislate.

Legislate? That means “to make laws.”

OK so it is clear that Statutes really are laws, let’s look at why this is so significant and find more support for that contention.

 

What About Codes?

The proponents of these ideas will often claim that a code is not law. Again, they fundamentally are seeking a rationale to deny the existence and power of the law.

A legal code is a book of laws – like a phone directory is a book of phone numbers or a dictionary is a book of definitions.

A legal code is simply a convenient way of gathering laws together, of organizing them. It doesn’t have to be a physical book, you can it online and nowadays that’s where we almost always find them. Here are more definitions that clarify:

Law code or legal code:
“A code is a type of legislation that purports to exhaustively cover a complete system of laws or a particular area of law as it existed at the time the code was enacted, by a process of codification.”

legal code
a code of laws adopted by a state or nation; “a code of laws”
Examples jus civile, Justinian code, Roman law, civil law – the legal code of ancient Rome; codified under Justinian; the basis for many modern systems of civil law

Salic law
the code of laws of the Salian Franks and other German tribes

criminal law
the body of law dealing with crimes and their punishment

code, codification
a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)

penal code
the legal code governing crimes and their punishment

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the earliest in recorded history. It was a set of laws. The Napoleonic Code is the basis of law in France and other places including Louisiana.

Look at the Alabama Code online:

“Code of Alabama and Constitution”

“Welcome to FindLaw’s hosted version of the Code of Alabama. Here you will find a collection of state laws passed by the Alabama Legislature and organized by subject area into Titles, Chapters and Sections.” 

Legal Codes are collections of laws; a book of laws if you will. It could not be more clear or more simple.  The idea that parts of codes are laws and others are not; or that codes per se are not law, is nonsense.

If you really don’t accept it after all this time, I challenge you to verify my information or prove me wrong. In a legal code each provision is directly traceable to a legislative enactment.

You can test this as to any state law, simply go to a law library — most counties and many law schools have one open to the public — and show the librarian the specific legal section of a code that you want to investigate.

Normally the librarian will be glad to show you how to trace that provision back to a specific legislative enactment passing it into law. And you can likely go back in its history to see who introduced it; and when; what legislative committees voted on it; what amendments were made to it.  You can probably find the vote recorded in each legislative proceeding and the signature of the governor or President and the date and time when it was signed.

In addition the librarian can show you how annotated codes give the history of the law as it evolved over time (many laws have been amended repeatedly over decades and centuries) and even key rulings of the courts as to what each section means.

But the key point here is that the “sections” in the code are actually provisions of the laws enacted. When codified they may be given specific numbers to fit them into an overall scheme; formal language such as “Be it enacted by the House and Senate…etc.” may be stripped out because it isn’t needed in the code compilation. It’s in the original law where it does matter.

Codes are simply a way to organize laws for convenience. They are laws.

What About Regulations?

Without going into the arguments in detail, I have found essentially two issues raised about regulations.

  1. Regulations are not laws and therefore cannot be enforced
  2. Regulations are not permitted at all, except that the government can issue regulations for itself.

I believe it is fairy simple to explain the first and dismiss the second.

It is quite true that a regulation is not a law. A law must be passed by a legislative body, a part of the Legislative branch of government. Most regulations are issued by the Executive branch. They are by definition not laws. So far we agree.

However, rules and regulations properly adopted and applied can have the force of law within their area of authority.

To have the force of law they must be made pursuant to some law which authorizes them.

Why regulations exist. Regulations exist for many reasons, among them:

  • The Legislature as a practical matter cannot and should not specify every single detail of every act of government.
  • They are used to enable the Executive to do the job of putting law into effect.
  • Regulations deal with matters that are sometimes highly technical and which a legislature is not equipped to handle.
  • Regulations are susceptible to change when the legislature is not able to act, or where it would be burdensome to refer these many changes to the legislative process

Government could not be efficiently carried on if something could not be left to the judgment and discretion of administrative officers to accomplish in detail what is authorized or required by law in general terms. Without this power legislation would become either oppressive or inefficient. There would be confusion in the laws, and in an effort to detail and particularize, the law would miss sufficiency both in provision and detail.
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 379 (Va. 1930)

An example will illustrate these points.

At this writing British Petroleum (BP) is in court on many legal cases seeking to hold it liable for breaking rules regarding pollution of the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The regulations and underlying laws hold them responsible to those injured and also allow the agencies and courts to impose fines for the violations of rules and regulations.

And those regulations dictate, for example, how much drilling ‘mud’ (fluid) of what density must be used in certain situations to prevent wells from blowing out. No Legislature would have the time or knowledge to make those rules, nor could they quickly change them if they got it wrong or as technology advanced.

So the statutory goals and consequences are laid out and agencies are given the power to regulate by rules. The Legislature determines the goals of the law and can limit or specify means and methods, but usually the details are left to regulations by the Executive branch.

In most cases Legislatures don’t rule make (except for themselves), they create or empower executive bodies to do that.

The Internal Revenue Code is one example of a complete and detailed set of rules in the form of a law. Even so IRS had to construct numerous rules and regulations to implement the law, specifying for example within each category of tax exemption or deduction situations that do or don’t apply.

Because laws simply can’t conceive of every circumstance that may arise, the Executive steps in to fill the gaps and smooth issues, as do the courts by applying logic and established legal principles to the goal or intentions of the legislature when it is not clear.

So the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and Highway Safety Act and others created bodies such as the EPA; and authorized agencies to adopt rules to achieve the ends the law seeks, to implement and execute the law.

Those regulations when properly adopted have in fact the force of law.

They can be challenged in Court and the creating agency must show for example that it had the authority to create them; that under the authorizing legislation these regulations have the force of law; that they are logical and consistent; that they were adopted using the proper procedures; that they are consistent with the purposes and aims of the law; that they are not arbitrary or unreasonably restrictive; and so on.

They can be challenged but they are binding absent a successful challenge.

Some arguments against regulations

I often see this case quoted for the proposition that statutes and laws don’t apply or have no force or are unconstitutional

“The common law is the real law, the supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”
Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261

Well that seems clear enough; the problem is that the ruling says no such thing.

Read it for yourself. Find those words. They are not there. Nothing like that is in the decision. That case is all about whether the Washington legislature followed the state constitution in the way it adopted a change to existing law. It has nothing to do with anything of regulation, rules, policy. (And note that this quote is offered also to support the idea that statutes are not laws…)

BUT here are the important words that are in Self v. Rhay:

It follows that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, the stay of execution is dissolved, and respondent is directed to produce petitioner in the Superior Court for King County for setting the time of his execution in the
manner provided by law.”

That should make anyone wishing to rely on these theories to consider seriously taking a more traditional approach to the law, like hiring a lawyer. The defendant didn’t use lawyers or present defenses because the court ‘has no jurisdiction’ and is only able to hear ‘commercial cases’.

Unfortunately that is nonsense and the Courts gave it zero consideration.

Perhaps he’d have gotten a death sentence anyway, but… this is not the sentence for a commercial infraction. It’s not about money. “The King or International Banker or the BAR” will not get richer for it. But someone may well get dead for it. It’s a case about the murder of a police officer.

Also frequently quoted in this context is:

“All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules,and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…”
Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

This is a wonderfully supportive quote; but it too is simply made up; those words are not in the opinion; nor does the case conclude anything remotely like that.

Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan is also often cited as proof that courts are purely administrative, not judicial; but that is a complete misreading of the case, which revolved around a matter that was the subject of an administrative hearing.

That case itself is an Equal Protection and Due Process claim under the Constitution filed in federal courts as a lawsuit, not an administrative hearing nor a ‘direct’ appeal from a hearing under statutory authority.

One of the most famous Supreme Court decisions ever made is quoted in support of the proposition:

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”
Marbury v Madison, 5th US (2Cranch)137, 174, 176 (1803)

Indeed the Marbury v Madison decision is the famous defining opinion of the judicial branch’s role in declaring what the law says, and finding laws unconstitutional and it does stand for that proposition.

However, those who say this is an absolute ban on rules or regulations mistake the grammatical meaning of that quote; they over-read what it means; and misconstrue the applicability of the key phrase: “which are repugnant to the Constitution”

They think “which” modifies “rules and practices” and thus conclude that it says “rules and practices are repugnant” to the Constitution; but if that were the case you can leave ‘which’ out of the quote to get the same result:

“All laws, rules and practices are repugnant to the Constitution
[and] are null and void”

But rules of legal interpretation require that every word in a legal document be given meaning if it can, so instead, we see that “which” modifies “repugnant to the Constitution” so that the proper understanding of this statement is

Those laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution
are null and void;
[but laws rules and practices which are not repugnant to the Constitution
are not null and void”]

The following words are not part of Marbury but are often found where people use the quote above, mostly because they have cut and pasted from someone who did the same and probably down a long chain of repeats:

-“Legislators simply don’t have the authority to rule make”

That is not any part of the court’s ruling.

Also often cited is the famous Miranda case:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

And that is correct. But it does not say, nor does it mean that ALL rule making or legislation per se is forbidden, rather it applies to only those rules and laws which actually abrogate rights secured by the Constitution.

Indeed for it to mean what they suggest then legislatures could not enact any laws, but they must, they do, and the Constitution expects them to do so. You could simply end the sentence at “legislation”  you don’t need “which would abrogate them”. Indeed they want it to say, “Rule making or legislation abrogates rights secured by the Constitution.” If that is what the court meant that is what it would have said.

The sovereign citizen deeply relies on the notion that rights are absolute and cannot be restrained, infringed, or balanced; but if rights collide and if no restraint is available, then might makes right, not law. Whoever is strongest will get unabridged rights and tough for the other guy and his rights. In fact, many rules and regulations and court decisions limit rights, but do not abrogate them. Indeed many play a role in protecting particular rights. 

Courts decide whether a rule or law abrogates a right secured by the Constitution (Marbury v Madison, ironically!); and Courts routinely hold that rights must be balanced against each other, so sometimes a right is restrained or restricted in order to give proper deference to a conflicting right.

Indeed a massive share of decisions by the Supreme Court are focused exactly on how to balance one right versus another.It is a major part of the role of the judiciary.

 

=                                More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                    =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD
Do You Need a License to Drive ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI
=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Sources Of Law and Authority
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-TB

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen

ideas and challenges to the driver license laws

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

The United States Is A Corporation
(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fK
The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &
Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fO

The United States is still a British Colony
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

There are Three United States
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fX

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

A Lost 13th Amendment
Removes all Legitimacy from Courts
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI
All US Courts  hear only Admiralty Cases
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

US Courts are not Admiralty after all,
but instead Equity Courts

http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fR

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

Advertisements
Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | Leave a comment

What is Mr. Magoo Legal Research?

Shortlink this blog  http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Bt

Because I often challenge sovereign citizens and others with some pretty crazy ideas, I get a lot of responses to my challenges. And they will often include “information” that poses as legal research.

Hey I am ready to be shown where I have misunderstood or missed something. I’ll change my mind if you can show me reliable information that contradicts me in a significant way.

But usually what I get is Mr Magoo legal research.

I do not accept Mr Magoo research, don’t cite a case you have not personally read all the way through and understood. No more quotes out of context from an opinion. No cut and paste of long lists of ‘cases’ from some site you have not verified.

Here are key characteristics of Mr Magoo legal research:

Offense against Humanity:
these tactics disrespect your opponent and are inhumane.

  • Ignoring clear, simple and direct expressions and substituting obtuse, inferential expressions. If you are trying to make it more complicated it’s probably because the clear and simple expressions you don’t like are right.
  • Telling the person your position and then placing the burden on them to find support for it (“go look it up”). If you don’t have the link find it, saying it is so without support is meaningless. Invariably it means you don’t actually have any proof.
  • Finding a site that agrees with you then cut and paste wholesale pages that you have not read or not examined to know that they are actually correct.
    Often this text will include one or more of the other offenses. If you haven’t studied your support material you don’t really know what it says and you don’t support your argument anyway. Odds are I’ll make you look the fool for doing it too.
  • The PERSON crime: trying to say that ‘person’ or ‘natural person’ is not a human being. Many courts have debunked this and sometimes laws directly refute it through definitions.

Offense Against Cases:

  • Failing to actually read a case before using it, to see if it truly supports your position
  • Citing a case that is really not on point, that deals with a different matter or whose principles don’t really apply to the matter at hand.
  • Citing a case that you cannot link (full decision)
    After all, I should be able to read it and see that you got it right!
    And one paragraph out of a decision could totally misrepresent the opinion.
  • Misquoting a case — fabricating a quote that is not actually in the decision
    Amazingly common it often happens when using copy and paste from sites you like that have perpetuated fake quotes. READ your cases and see if the part you like is actually there!
  • Quoting the part of a case that supports you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.
  • Misreading a case or Reading  law or case out of context;
    you must have some legal knowledge to understand cases, or you may misrepresent the actual opinion. OTOH sometimes the law or case is actually quite clear in plain English.
  • Screwing up the details such as calling it a SCOTUS decision when it is not, getting the citation wrong, getting the date wrong or ignoring the date of a decision
  • Citing a case that has been overruled.
  • Providing a list of dozens of cases and quotes from each and pretending that that is an argument. You use cases to support your argument, in and of itself a list like that means nothing. You must make an argument then show how each case supports your argument.

Offense by Definition

  • The ALICE IN WONDERLAND OFFENSE:
    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
    Well that’s great but I can make any law or opinion mean anything I want that way. Don’t do it.
  • Ignoring the definitions provided in a law.
  • Using definitions specifically provided in one law with a different one
  • Ignoring the plain meaning of words — courts start with the natural reading of language before they dig into ambiguous wording.
  • Finding the exact usage of a word you like and ignoring others that are more appropriate.
  • Insisting that a definition in a law dictionary such as Black’s is the only interpretation — in fact courts start with the regular dictionary. And any dictionary simply documents how words are commonly used, it is not law but meaning.
  • Using a very out of date Black’s law definition. Words change their meaning over time, and words in legal context are no different.
  • Insisting on a definition of a word that produces an absurdity.
    Courts specifically say they will not do this in interpreting a word. Neither can you.
  • Choosing the wrong law for the situation because you can also use an incorrect definition.
Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | Leave a comment

Do You Need a License to Drive?

Shortlink to this blog: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI
Updated May 12 2017 to add City of Akron v DeBrosse as
Case #9 in opposition to license requirements

Continue reading

Aside | Posted on by | 82 Comments

The Lawyers’ “Secret Oath”

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,
at http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

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 isnt 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.

The Lawyer’s Secret Oath

(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

ooops.

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.

Obviously.

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...

Related blog:

Claimed: The US Became Bankrupt (Usually in 1933) &
Claimed: US Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency  


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.)

 Huh?

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.

The U.S. did not declare bankruptcy and it’s not a corporation; nor are the states as shown at the same link; he seems to be asserting issues around the ‘Act of 1871‘ debunked as well.

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                                            =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Sources Of Law and Authority
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF

Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-TB

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

Do You Need a License to Drive ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI

The United States Is A Corporation

(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fK

The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &

Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fO

The United States is still a British Colony
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

There are Three United States
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fX

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

Does The “Real” 13th Amendment Eliminate the Courts?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI

All US Courts hear only Admiralty Cases
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fR

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | 2 Comments

Does The “Real” 13th Amendment Eliminate the Courts?

Shortlnk to this blog: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI

I am a private individual, a retired businessman, and I am not an attorney. Just an educated and interested party who doesn’t want to see people  losing their money, property or freedom due to misinformation. I provide links to full court decisions and the actual laws involved so you can read for yourself. 

TL;DR: [if you don’t want to read the details here’s what it says]
The claim is a ‘lost’ amendment to the constitution makes anyone who accepts a title from a foreign power lose citizenship; therefore anyone who becomes a lawyer lose their citizenship and becomes ineligible to hold any official office by reason of having the ‘title’ of Esquire; and therefore no judge may sit in any court and the courts are all illegal.

But
(1) the amendment was never ratified; and
(2) if it had been it would not have done so since “Esquire” is not a “title of nobility and honor”;
(3) There is no actual ‘granting’ of the appellation Esquire by any law; it is merely tradition;
and
(4) it is surely not being granted by a foreign power.

There is a an outstanding and detailed review of this at: The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility”


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, at http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

I note 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 …

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  American Patriot Friends Network  came to be a touchstone as it collected more than half a dozen of these ‘ideas’. In this blog I link to another site where it is covered — Barefoot’s World. I am sure there are many and many many many different explanations for each contention, and many sites that promote this spurious legend, but let us go with these.

The claim: There is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that disqualifies every lawyer in the country from being a citizen, and thereby from serving as a judge.

It should not come as a surprise that sovereign citizens do not like lawyers and judges. Not a bit. So there has arisen a complex mythology for depriving them of their ‘status’ and more importantly their power, especially as judges, to make rulings and enforce the laws the sovereigns so sincerely do not accept.Oh and by the way many claim that the Constitution you know is actually not the real one, which was supplanted or repealed or something by Congress. But that’s a different question and they don’t necessarily separate those thoughts.  See The US is a Corporation…or an Elephant. for more on that point. I will simply say at least for this theory they ignore the question of whether this is the same Constitution adopted in 1789.

This is serious stuff as some proponents have suggested that this Amendment implies or authorizes the murder or arrest of police and public officials.  Yes really.And one person was sentenced to death in part because he relied on it.

I will cover the basics from the APFN and Barefoot sites, but if you want an authoritative and detailed source, there’s a great article whose footnotes are longer than this entire analysis:
The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility

Meet “The Thirteenthers”

Original 13th Amendment

These are Barefoot World’s site’s claims:

Amendment Article XIII

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

“The Real Thirteenth Amendment, shown above, was ratified March 12, 1819 with the vote of the Virginia General Assembly to publish the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia with this article of amendment included in the Constitution of the United States, and thus it became an integral part of the Constitution for the United States of America”

But if the Amendment Has been Ratified … So What?

Below I will give some detailed analysis to the claims that this Amendment was ratified and will show you that the courts and government say it never was; I will show clearly that it was not.

But rather than start with a detailed and complicated rebuttal of their arguments, let’s start by assuming it was ratified, and examine its effect.

The claim is it means all members of the bar lose their citizenship and no court has a judge because the title Esquire makes them non-citizens and ineligible to hold office.

Problem 1 Esquire is Neither a Title of Honor Nor of Nobility.

Under the Constitution when a term is not defined, English Law of the era is used to determine meaning, as that was the framework for law in the Colonies at the time of Independence, the law practiced by the founders.

Under English Law a title of “nobility and honor” may only be conferred by the Monarch. No Monarch, no title.  Esquire would not qualify as a title of nobility and honor even for an English lawyer in England. It is  not awarded by the Monarch.

Problem 2  It does not come from a foreign power
— actually it does not come from anywhere and it does not legally exist!

Just put plain nonsense to the idea that US Lawyers work for the Queen as some of these folks contend. They don’t.

  • The BAR association is not an international association to which every lawyer belongs though there is an International Bar Association headquartered in London, founded in 1947. It is a voluntary association as is the American Bar Association.
  • The Bar association to which lawyers must belong is a State association, whose legal status is given by a specific law in each state or by the rules of the State’s Supreme Court or court system.
  • Further ‘Esquire” is not often used these days by attorneys, but at the most it is a title applied by attorneys to themselves, to officers of the court, to members of the bar.
  • No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and therefore, it confers, no distinction in law. It does not legally exist.
  • You will not find any law that confers the title in any of the 50 states. It is therefore not a “title of nobility or honor;” it is not a title at all. Legally it does not exist.
  • Even if it were conferred by the Bar Association (or for that matter by state or federal law) that surely is notfrom any emperor, king, prince or foreign power.” The Bar Association (of which there are more than 50, one for each state and territory) is not a foreign king, prince or power. Nor is the State Legislature of any state.
  • If somehow it were a title of honor or nobility issued by a state under state law, the state law would be unconstitutional under Art I Sec 10. So such a title would not exist legally, the person would not be able to receive the title and would not lose citizenship for a title not received when conveyed by an unconstitutional law. The same is true of Congress under Art 1 Sec 9. Only a foreign nation can convey such a title by law and none does to lawyers in the U.S.

So, lawyers are safe even had the amendment been adopted. It has no effect or relevance to them.

In Fact It Was Never Ratified

“amendments, … shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states”

Constitution Article V

The Barefoot site as well as the AFPN claim the Amendment became effective March 12, 1819 being ratified by 13 states, the last of them Virginia.

Problem 3: Not Enough States Ratified

In 1819 there were 22 states, and 17 states would be required to reach 3/4 of the States. The number of states required increases as the total number of states increases. It must be ratified by 3/4 of the existing states at the time it is adopted, not at the time it is proposed. (Otherwise an amendment introduced in the early days could be ratified with the consent of less than 25% of states.)

13 is not 17.

So even by the terms of the argument, the amendment is not ratified. And as will be noted below Virginia did not actually ratify.

At the APFN site there is a table showing the “states” that ratified the amendment according to them, and when they published the amendment. In and of itself that is not evidence of ratification but even if it were the argument leaks mightily.

“The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:

Colorado 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967[sic], 1868
….
Virginia 1819 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming 1869, 1876

Problem 4  Publication is not ratification.

Simply publishing a copy of the amendment, or the Constitution including the amendment, or even a statement that the amendment was ratified is not an act of ratification. A legislature must hold a specific vote and transmit it to the proper authorities in the National Capitol to ratify an amendment. Ratification, says the Supreme Court is not legislation in the ordinary sense. (But even for an ordinary law this would not be valid.)

But in fact just because a document is printed that does not mean it is sufficient, legal, or binding. If challenged in court for example, the state in prosecuting you for violating a law may be required to provide an official copy of the act as signed by the governor and heads of the legislative branch.
It usually isn’t done because attorneys know that it will be proven easily and they have to have a good-faith reason to believe what is printed in the law books is not correct. Usually the published law books are sufficient but when the question is raised the original documents must be available for inspection. 

 Indeed publication of the amendment in a pamphlet or copy of the Constitution has no legal effect whatever. Consider Virginia. By publishing it they surely believe it was ratified by sufficient states, but by publishing it they are not saying there was an act of ratification By Virginia. There is no record of any such act, nor is publishing it the same as saying “we ratified this” it is at most “this was ratified by enough states.”

If that table is accurate all it shows is that a lot of people thought this amendment was adopted over the years. And the amendment isn’t shown any longer because the research showed it had not been adopted. We are better at documenting these things today.

There is a process a state must follow in ratifying an amendment, set out in law, and the documents’ custodian these days is the Archivist of the United States (in earlier days it was the Secretary of State) who declares when an amendment has been ratified. The Archivist has not published a certification that this amendment has been adopted. Because it has not. And it turns out even that doesn’t ammetr, ratification by publication didn’t happen enough even if it were to be accepted.

Here is the full list showing “ratification by publication” from the AFPN article:

The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility 13th Amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the following years:

Colorado ——- 1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967, 1868
Connecticut — 1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
Dakota ———- 1862, 1863, 1867
Florida ———- 1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia ——— 1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois ———— 1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana ———– 1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa ————— 1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas ———– 1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Kentucky ——– 1822
Louisiana ——– 1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine ————- 1825, 1831
Massachusetts -1823
Michigan ——– 1827, 1833
Mississippi —— 1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri ———- 1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska ——— 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina – 1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories — 1833
Ohio ————— 1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania — 1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island —- 1822
Virginia ———- 1819 (ratification by 13th State)
Wyoming ——– 1869, 1876

Totals: 24 States in 78 separate official government publications.
[Note: no explanation for the * on Missouri is offered]

Problem 5: A few issues with the APFN list.

If this is evidence of “ratification by publication” they are saying states can ratify before they actually become states; or even if they never become states; even if they don’t exist as states.
Which if anything shows you that publication is not ratification.

  • “Northwest Territories” is not a state, it was a territory that became all or part of 6 different states;
  • Nor is “Dakota” (which became two states);
  • The following states could not have ‘ratified’ per the table and its dates:
    • Colorado became a state in 1876 but they claim  1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1967[sic], 1868, yet never after statehood.
    • Michigan was not a state until 1837 but they show 1827 and 1833
    • Wyoming was not a state until 1890. They show 1869 and 1876.
    • Iowa was not a state until 1846. The last date shown is 1843
  • These states are shown with some dates before statehood:
    • Kansas became a state in 1861. They show 1855 as the first date.
    • Nebraska was admitted 1867. Of nine dates shown only one is at or after 1867.

Again if the 13th ratification was indeed Virginia in 1819, then it is not ratified, as there were 22 states, requiring 17 ratifications not the 13 shown.  In 1869 it would have required 28 states; which it has never reached. The table at most would document 18 ratifications once non-states and pre-admitted states are left off.

Problem  6: Virginia did  not ratify before or after 1814

Even the Governor of Virginia was unsure; in a letter to the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates on January 25, 1814, James Barbour wrote that:

I have received a letter from the Secretary of State, [James Monroe] requesting to be advised whether the Legislature of Virginia had agreed to, or rejected an amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, which had for its object the prevention of any citizen accepting any title of nobility, present, pension, or office, from any foreign prince or power. Upon reference to the archives of this Department, no official document can be found which justifies a reply affirmatively or negatively. I submit to the Legislature the propriety of adopting some mode by which the difficulty may be obviated.  (Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia 145 (Richmond, Samuel Pleasants, 1813 [1814] {Jol A. Silversmith (April 1999), “The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility”, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 8: 577} )

There was never a document found, and Virginia has no record of taking a vote before or after this letter was sent. But if there is “no official document” there is simply no ratification. You cannot assume a ratification happened and an amendment has been passed. You have to have proof.

Indeed it appears in 1817 Congress itself printed a copy of the Constitution with the Amendment shown; but Congress cannot ratify nor promulgate an unratified amendment; it was simply a mistake.

Finally if all the ‘ratifications’, 24 the table says while counting two that never were states and 4 that weren’t yet states are counted as of the last date in table, 1876, there were 37 states thus 28 states must ratify.  Indeed in counting Wyoming in 1876 as a first time, it doesn’t achieve the required number.

Now there are 50 states requiring 38 states to ratify any amendment.

The Courts Have Ruled On This

Problem 7: You probably won’t be surprised that the Courts have already considered and rejected these arguments.

The Plaintiff has made the following allegations: 1) Defendant Schwartz is “in violation of the United States Constitution for using the [t]itle of . . . [e]squire”….None of the above allegations state a legally recognized cause of action.
Wright v. Leasecomm Corp., 817 F.Supp. 106, 108 (M.D. Fla. 1993)

Campion, a tax protester raised it in his defenses against a charge of tax evasion. The court replied that it would

“…correct any misunderstanding Plaintiff has concerning the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a certified copy of the Thirteenth Amendment from the Colorado State Archives which was published in 1861. As included in that compilation, the Thirteenth Amendment would strip an individual of United States citizenship if they accept any title of nobility or honor. However, this is not the Thirteenth Amendment. The correct Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery. Although some people claim that state publication of the erroneous Thirteenth Amendment makes it valid, Article V of the Constitution does not so provide.
Campion v. Towns, No.CV-04-1516PHX-ROS, *2 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2005),

What about the BAR??

A Federal appellate court took note of documents produced by the defendant, a convicted murderer who submitted documents in support of his appeal claiming that it rendered his conviction invalid:

These documents allege in great detail a complex conspiracy by an illegal monopoly, the American Bar Association, which resulted in a take-over of the judicial systems of this country, both federal and state, by the ABA and its related entities, including the Alabama State Bar Association and Alabama’s Unified Court System. It is then alleged that the ABA-controlled system is illegal and in violation of what is referred to as the “missing Thirteenth Amendment,” to the United States Constitution, which stated that any person who accepts a title of nobility forfeits his United States citizenship and which Amendment was ratified but subsequently hidden or excised from the law.

Since lawyers and judges accept the titles “Esquire”/”The Honorable,” it is argued, they are not citizens and are barred from holding office...The documents then explain that these are reasons that Sibley and his wife refused appointed counsel on appeal and refused to pursue matters any further in the court system and that only Congress can give them relief.
Sibley v. Culliver, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1278, 1283 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff’d 377 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2004)

What happened? The Sibley court dismissed the appeal, concluding in part that the defendant was simply not seeking relief through the courts since his contention, if accepted, meant that they could not hear his appeal, and obviously if the Sibley’s are correct then literally they should be asking Congress to set aside the verdict.

So this case shows that using these theories the man and his wife deprived themselves of representation in court; and on appeal; and he did not ever appeal a death sentence. 

These bogus theories can cost lives!

=                                   More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit:
You Can’t Touch Me!
https://wp.me/p3nYC8-1q5
Sovereigns inaccurately cite Court Cases,
in their effort to show the courts
have no jurisdiction.

=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Sources Of Law and Authority
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF

Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-TB

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

Do You Need a License to Drive ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI

The United States Is A Corporation

(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fK

The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &

Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fO

The United States is still a British Colony
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

There are Three United States
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fX

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

Does The “Real” 13th Amendment Eliminate the Courts?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI

All US Courts hear only Admiralty Cases
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fR

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | 7 Comments

Is The U.S. Is Still a British Colony?

 

Shortlink to this Blog: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

If you are just starting learning about sovereign citizens and their ideas, you should probably look at my introductory blog which summarizes the sovereign citizen ideas and links to many of its favorite theories, at   http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

Many of the theories used in the sovereign citizen movement tend to involve a wide range of interlocking — and down right weird — ideas. I feel they don’t stand up to logical analysis, but they do tend to interlock to support each other, so where to start with analyzing any one of them is difficult because it will eventually rely on some other absurd idea…and 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 resorted to looking a number of sites and trying to pick one or two sites and ideas that seemed to be referred to often.

The site www.apfn.org (American Patriot Friends Organization) came to be a touchstone as it collected and promulgated more than half a dozen of these ‘big ideas’. I am sure there are many and many many many different explanations for each contention, but let us go with this one.
So you may be surprised to find out

The United States is a British Colony

The TL;DR:

(1) Author starts by explaining that we actually lost the Revolution and the Treaty shows it; and
(2) whatever we gained in the Treaty we later gave up; then
(3) explains the War of 1812 as a British attempt to stop the “13th Amendment” from being ratified (thus two theories interlock http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI )  and
(4) moves on to show the Civil War was all about property and because the South lost we don’t own anything, and all our taxes go to the King.

His factual basis is completely wrong on (1) and (2) and (3).  And I don’t think (4) is worthy of consideration.

This author (who is never identified) misreads documents; doesn’t realize when they are not referring to places in the U.S.; fails to recognize that the alleged amendment was never ratified; and if ratified would not do what he claims; and generally is among the most clueless of propositions you will ever encounter.

If you want to stop right here I won’t blame you…

Why are we a British Colony?

This is the Worst Document Ever in terms of outright baboonish errors; utterly clueless!

I refer to the author of this as our “ficto-historian” since he pretends to back things up with historical fact but in fact he is simply weaving tales of misunderstanding and misinformation.

1. We Lost The Revolution, Just Look at The Treaty of Paris to See That!

His Proposition: The Treaty of Paris between King George and the United States was in fact a treaty to give the King continuing and greater power because we had not won the Revolution.

Evidence: The King calls himself “Prince of the United States of America” in the introduction.

“I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.  You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England.”

Error:

Author can’t read the simple words of the introduction of the two parties to the Treaty!

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of

  • [First party:] the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc

– and [the heart] of-

  • [Second Party:] the United States of America,

to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish…

Observe that“hearts” is plural and “they” refers to two entities: the King and the United States; but the author’s interpretation allows only one person in that whole paragraph, the King. If so, who the hell is “they”?

DUH!

Evidence: Benjamin Franklin held an office, rank or honor granted by the King and was a subject of the King during the negotiations; so did the other negotiators. This means they were negotiating for the King, not for America.

“You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esqr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.”

“An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man….Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.”

Error: “…he spent most of the War traveling between England and France.”

No. Franklin was American Ambassador to France during the War and would have been arrested and hanged on conviction for Treason if he entered Britain. He did not go to Britain during the war. Just complete untruth.

ErrorFranklin is addressed as Esquire, that is the truth in the paragraph, every other word is completely wrong. Esquire used with his name is not a rank, nor title, nor is it a title of nobility, nor is it from the King. Indeed it was not granted by anyone.

The use of that term was purely a courtesy; he was never made Esquire by the King; nor was he an attorney who might be called Esquire by admission to the Bar though that too would not matter since the British practice of law was unconnected at that time to the American practice of law.

Franklin was addressed by the title of “Esquire” by virtue of his holding Rank as an Ambassador or head of mission in negotiating the Treaty. It was not an official title, it was simply an honorific used with men in important positions. In England the corresponding use would have been “His Excellency” for an Ambassador.

Error:   Importantly, for both this and other arguments, the meaning of Esquire is misstated. In all U.S. usages Esquire is not a title, nor rank, but merely an honorific used to denote one worthy of respect, similar to “The Honorable” appellation for members of Congress.

It is not conveyed by ANY law, nor was it ever conveyed under any British law to Franklin. Traditionally attorneys assumed “Esquire” to indicate their membership in the bar, but there is no law anywhere in the US granting it, it’s just a practice, not commonly done at all now.  America never had a feudal society and the colonies did not grant titles on their own or on behalf of the King. Not even the Royal Colonies. I am unaware of a single colonial granted a knighthood, made Esquire, or given a title, in the colonies. Likely some subjects in the colonies did gain honors from the King but it was done in Britain not in America. 

And it was never an index of nobility anywhere, including Britain. Nobility is heritable (until the late 20th Century); if your kids couldn’t inherit it, it was not nobility. Esquire is not a title you could pass to your child. Nor was it granted by the King, even in feudal days. Knights chose their squires.

There was and is no law or precedent in America for granting any titles and a different usage developed in what became the United States.

The usage of Esquire in America is and was purely nominal and honorary; in 1783 Franklin was not a subject of the King and did not and could not hold an honor from the King. Franklin later was called Esquire in the US and he may have been given that honorific for several reasons.

  • Franklin later was President of the State of Pennsylvania (an office analogous to Governor) for three years from 1785, and could have been styled “Esquire” as result of this service.
  • Franklin is later referred to as Benjamin Franklin, Esq., in his capacity as Post Master General of the United States

So Esquire is not a title, not a title of nobility, was never legally conveyed to Franklin by anyone much less the King. It is simply a term of respect to a person holding a responsible public position.

Evidence:

“In the first article of the Treaty most of the king’s claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture.” 

Error:

Well that actually does not contradict anything; it is correct. But he goes on to claim the money is in fact tribute to him as King. In any event the King also renounces any proprietary interest in the colonies as well:

Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof… [emphasis added]

Evidence: 

[Treaty] “Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers.”

Error: Let’s see:

Article 3d:
It is agreed that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other Places in the Sea, where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have Liberty to take Fish of every Kind on such Part of the Coast of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island) And also on the Coasts, Bays & Creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty’s Dominions in America; and that the American Fishermen shall have Liberty to dry and cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Settlement without a previous Agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the Ground.
The Treaty of Paris

Error:   No place specifically named is in US waters. But even if it did…how does letting Americans fish in American waters renounce our independence please?

The claim is made that this is because they are granting rights to the King. It doesn’t actually make sense since that would instead give the British those rights. But it doesn’t give the King any rights it gives his subjects certain rights. Not the same thing at all.

But fictionalist doesn’t really understand what the Treaty actually does say.

The Treaty gives Americans fishing rights in areas which are not part of the United States but are in the King’s remaining dominion of Canada; or gives equal rights to fishermen of both countries in areas they have traditionally fished. And yes that allows them to fish in American waters not specified. 

So the U.S. also grants fishing rights to British in the areas previously fished by them. This is a perfectly reasonable negotiated accommodation over fishing rights, both George and the U.S. got something. Fishermen could fish in either country’s waters regardless of their nationality. This is an international negotiation, not an unequal exchange. It certainly does not indicate that George ruled over the U.S.

That’s enough and really entirely too much on the Treaty of Paris. Without in depth examination of his other assertions some will perhaps be persuaded, but at this point I will not further pursue the lengthy and errant claims put forth by someone so clueless as to not be able to read the names of the parties to the treaty accurately.

However, the first Article of the Treaty is clear and unmistakable:

The King cedes ALL sovereign, territorial, and proprietary claims and rights.

2. “We  Just Look at The Treaty of 1794 to Prove We Are Still Under The King”

Next our erstwhile ficto-historian shows that the Treaty of 1794 makes, kept, or reflects us to be, under British Dominion.  He claims this is all because we really were not independent.

In fact, it was not a great deal for the U.S., as this explanation from the State Department web site shows; but it basically reflects the fact that our nation was small and weak and was squeezed between Britain and France as result of the Franco-British wars of the late 1790’s that later became the Napoleonic Wars…we made a not-so-great deal with Britain in order to keep out of a conflict with her.

As the Official explanation states:

“The resulting treaty addressed few U.S. interests, and ultimately granted Britain additional rights. The only concessions Jay obtained was a surrender of the northwestern posts (already agreed to in 1783) and a commercial treaty with Great Britain that granted the United States “most favored nation” status, but seriously restricted U.S. commercial access to the British West Indies. All other outstanding issues…were to be resolved by arbitration. Jay even conceded that the British could seize U.S. goods bound for France if they paid for them and could confiscate without payment French goods on American ships.”

Jay’s Treaty was immensely unpopular with the American public, but it squeaked through the Senate on a 20 to 10 vote on June 24, 1795. President Washington implemented the treaty in the face of popular disapproval, realizing that it was the price of peace with Great Britain and that it gave the United States valuable time to consolidate and rearm in the event of future conflict.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/jay-treaty

On the other hand this treaty certainly did not put us under British rule.

3. The War of 1812 and the 13th Amendment

Ficto-Historian next explains that the big problem after this was that the “13th Amendment” to the Constitution threatened the King’s reign because it would disqualify all of his henchmen (lawyers) from running the government and thus make America truly free.

Claimed Without Evidence:

 “The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.”

Error:  The Real 13th Amendment  passed in 1865 and ended slavery.

Error:  The “13th Amendment” referred to is:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

It is not an Amendment at all; it is a proposed amendment that was never ratified, and discussed in detail at http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI  

Error: If you read the blog at the link, you will see that not only was it never ratified, it would not have the effect the sovereigns claim: that is, to close down the courts and make all lawyers and judges lose citizenship and the right to hold office. It just wouldn’t do that.

The sovereigns assert that by becoming a lawyer and joining the bar one receives the title “Esquire” and that is a title that disqualifies and would remove citizenship under the proposed amendment. As noted above, Esquire is not a title of nobility though it might be an honor. But becoming a lawyer or a judge in the U.S. conveys no  “title of nobility or honor” under any law. And certainly no such honor would be from “any [foreign] Emperor, King, etc.” You don’t become an Esquire when you become a lawyer, no one gives you the right or the title or anything of the sort. It’s just a tradition, falling into disuse these days. Go ahead, show me a law that grants the title anywhere in the US.

(Did I mention Sovereign Citizens hate judges and lawyers? They REALLY hate judges and lawyers.I suppose it’s because their belief systems are usually demolished in courtrooms.)

Error: As noted in the link provided, the Amendment was not ratified at any time before during or after the war of 1812. The idea that the British burned Washington to hide something that didn’t happen and that they wouldn’t care about, is laughable. They didn’t even while winning the war think the US was or would become a colony. They couldn’t hold on to twenty five years earlier and Britain was in a long and deadly war with Napoleon and the U.S. was making that struggle awkward by insisting it had the right to do business with France and deliver goods there.

Also the citizenship of some sailors on US ships was ambiguous: British law did not allow anyone to lose their British nationality and so Brits who were naturalized as Americans were considered subjects of the King and the King needed more sailors. When they stopped US ships they removed and put into their Navy anyone who wasn’t an American in 1787 as covered by the Treaty of Paris.

The British didn’t want to fight us and divert resources; but in the end they did.

And yes, we basically lost the War of 1812 which still does not make us a British Colony.

4. All Property and Taxes belong to the King Because We Lost the Civil War

You are surprised to learn the United States LOST the Civil War, no? The United States was the North and they defeated the South. Well that’s my opinion.

The Fictionalist explains…

Claimed Without Evidence: The Civil War was not about slavery (nor presumably States’ Rights) but was about the right to own land or any property at all, free of the government’s ability to tax; and that, if the government can tax land or other property, you don’t really own it. Also all taxes are for the King.

The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken (emphasis added). Why! The king’s tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and corruption of the Constitution and government representatives, instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of this country during the Civil War could have been avoided.

Error: That is just a silly argument; a diversion from history.  The Southern States themselves said Northern efforts to end slavery and the preservation of the institution of slavery was at the core of their secession.

South Carolina:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slave holding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes;and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection….

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

…. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state…

Mississippi

….Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove….

Texas

….We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

Error: The government can enFORCE laws, and seize property in doing so, subject to due process of law. And a fundamental power of every sovereign government is the ability to tax. If government has no money it cannot operate and so an attribute of sovereign government is the power to tax.

We can indeed live in a republic and in addition pay taxes of various sorts, including property tax.  (Interestingly,  US Federal Government does not have the power to tax private property in any State; that power is limited to the state governments.)

Conclusion: We are a British Colony??

And that pretty well sums up the concept; all government is actually the King’s and all taxes are for the King, even though money today doesn’t go to the King nor to Great Britain in any particular way, so when you pay property tax for the school district that’s because we are a British possession. And in fact the King basically owns your house.
Not so much….

And the Civil War was really about declaring tax independence from Britain despite the fact that the South tried to get the British to sign on as allies, and that we elect the people who determine our taxes as well as what they are used for. Your state could eliminate property taxes entirely if it wanted to. Well it could eliminate them not saying it would.

If indeed we are a British Colony, how is all that actually taking place?

How much money do we send to the Queen each year and how? How does the Queen rule us?

Actually sovereigns have one, most laughable example of the Queen allegedly ordering changes to Social Security.

It is as hilarious as the inability to read the first paragraph of the Treaty of Paris, because it is based first, on not recognizing that Britain has a program called “Social Security” (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim76000.htm ) which is what the ‘Queen” (The Parliament) is referring to in the document they proffer; and second, he doesn’t know that we have an agreement with Britain that people who earn money and contribute to retirement systems in both countries can coordinate those contributions to get a single pension from one or the other (http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/uk.html).

And there I think we shall let the matter rest, this is way too much analysis than his propositions deserve already…

-30-

=                                       More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                       =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Sources Of Law and Authority
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF

Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-TB

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

Do You Need a License to Drive ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI

The United States Is A Corporation

(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant )
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fK

The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &

Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fO

The United States is still a British Colony
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

There are Three United States
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fX

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

A Lost 13th Amendment
Removes all Legitimacy from Courts

http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI

All US Courts hear only Admiralty Cases
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fR

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

 

Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | 4 Comments

Sources Of Law

Shortlink to this blog: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fF
Shortlink to discussion of Statutory Law http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

Claimed: “Common Law” is the Supreme Law of the Land

Claimed: “Rules, Regulations, Statutes are Not Legal
or Only Govern the Government not People

Note: The “claim(s)” shown are those attributed to many adherents to a variety of theories, especially those who call themselves sovereign citizens. This blog is one of several used to address specific claims in detail, and the background and organization of my response to the movement begins at this link: http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD

Sources of Law

Where does law come from in the first place? 

Who made, or makes, or gets to make laws?

What is Law?

Let us first and briefly look into the question of “What is Law and why do we have it” to better understand the significance of the various sources of Law.

Law, noun
1.the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2.any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.
Compare bylaw, statute law.

4. a system or collection of such rules
…..
7. an act of the supreme legislative body of a state or nation, as distinguished from the constitution.

law noun (rule)  [Cambridge Dictionary]

a rule made by a government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules

 

So a law is a rule that is binding, enforceable, and one can be punished for not obeying.

 

The Rule of Law — More Than Just a Rule

We speak of The Rule of Law as being fundamental to our society.

The Rule of Law is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.  (First Result from googling “What is the Rule of Law”)

Rule of Law Definition:  That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.
Duhaime’s Law Dictionary

Without laws we have no effective freedoms. This is a corollary of the Rule of Law. We base the orderly functioning and fundamental justice of our entire society upon the  “Rule of Law”

Laws shield us from others and even from government itself.  Lack of laws is anarchy; which means whoever can force others to his will gets his way.

My position throughout my blogs is that Law is made by humans, has always been made by humans, and there is a long history of legal principles and thought which can be found in writing.

Law evolves as societies evolve. Law changes to fit the character of the society.

Humans when gathered in any significant number will ALWAYS create governments, and those strike the balance between societal needs and individual needs in different ways according to the values of those societies.

Indeed the essential tension of every human society is how to balance the freedom of the individual with the needs of the greater society; no perfect balance can ever exist, but each society must and will strike some balance. Too much for the individual and the society fails, too collective and the people are not served and will ultimately bring it down. Neither extreme works for long. Both are scary; terms for them might be anarchy on the one hand and fascism on the other. The best results are somewhere in the middle.

The ideal characteristics of a systemic rule of law (not to be achieved perfectly by fallible humans) are:

  • The government and its officials and agents as well as all individuals and private entities are accountable under the law. No one is exempt from the laws.
  • The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
  • The processes by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
  • Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

In OUR legal tradition there is a government to which every person (human being) is subject; and the people collectively exercise power over that government. That is collective sovereignty.

We have a written constitution and it is the supreme law of the land.

The legislative function of our governments is the part which has the power to make law; the judicial has the power to interpret the law, to say what it means, and to apply it to specific cases; and the executive function executes the law, enforces it. Separation of powers limits the power of government to help protect the individual.

Law is subject to the collective consent of the governed, but no society could exist and no government function if it required the unanimous consent of every person. Because no law would every receive such unanimous consent. No law passed by a legislature will have unanimous agreement of all humans; and thus no true law can exist by that measure. And if a law does not apply to all it is not a law. By definition it is not law if people can exempt themselves from it.

This is one reason you won’t find a single court decisions that ever said personal  individual assent to the law is required; just the opposite in fact. You won’t find any legislative enactment (law or otherwise) that says that. Our whole society is based on laws to which all must submit.

It is the mandatory nature of law that allows us to use it to restrict the arbitrary use of power against us.

In order for our scheme of ordered liberties to succeed, we must all obey valid laws, even those with which we do not agree; a man cannot exempt himself from the operation of a law simply by declaring that he does not consent to have it apply to him.
City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987) 737 P2d 981

So, we now turn to the question of where do laws come from?  In the process we will also clarify how one kind of law is superior to another.

Source: The Constitution — Constitutional Law

In our nation we start with the U. S. Constitution. It sets up a legal framework and a government for the Union of the States and it is a source of law for us; it is the Supreme Law of our land, though some sovereigns disagree and assign that aspect to what they call “Common Law.”

The term Constitutional Law refers to Law derived from the Constitution directly.

I must caution that some simply claim the Constitution was from its start a corporate charter for those who wished to join in a venture and has no applicability to them. Philosophically I cannot respond; legally you can be assured that under all traditions and the actual practice of law the Constitution is binding law, and the government created by it exercises sovereign power. 

Sovereignty is found by transfer of power by treaty with the King in the Treaty of Paris (or arguably at the time we declared independence); by current international law which recognizes the U.S. as a sovereign government by reason of its exclusive control of its territory and people; and by the Constitutional claim that the people created this government as an exercise of their own sovereignty.

The last is I suppose the one thing most disputed by them. Under international law sovereign nations decide by law who is their citizen, and that is not a matter of choice by the citizen.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI

Supreme means supreme, therefore no law, case law, natural law, common law, statutory law, is higher.

(Note: State Law is supreme in the matters that are the sole purview of the States, i.e., where the Constitution does not apply, State Constitution and statutes are supreme.)

Constitutional Law: Many provisions of the Constitution are about how government is organized; the three branches and their powers, and those are in fact law; and some of the Constitution makes other types of law, for example the prohibition against a “Bill of Attainder” restricts the power of the Congress (a legislature) a fine example of the Rule of Law at work to prevent arbitrary exercise of power; all of this is “Constitutional Law.”

(This is not to be confused with the study of the Constitution, which may be called Constitutional Law. And please note that both of those are different from the determination that some law conforms to or violates the constitution, which we call “a constitutional law” in the first case and “an unconstitutional law” in the latter.)

The terms of the Constitution are Law; the Supreme Law of the Land. 

The Authority of the Constitution rests on the Sovereignty of the People.

“…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution..and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves…”
Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

The Chisolm decision, rendered just four years after the creation of the Constitution, shows that “We the People” is a collective term; the process of adoption of the Constitution did not make any provision for the individual sovereign theory (which did not exist at the time, it came about in 1970) and therefore our legal tradition is that we are governed by the Constitution and our consent is implicit in our failure to change that document or form a different government. We exercise our consent (at least in one aspect) when we vote. When we exercise free speech. When we campaign for political ideas and laws. And if we choose to not vote we are again exercising consent.

Source: State Constitutions

Each state is likewise a sovereignty. As explained before a sovereign is an entity which controls a territory and its people and actually exercises sovereign powers. While the states have designated areas of their sovereign powers that they delegate to the national government, the remaining powers by the tenth amendment are reserved to the state. The people of each state empower their state government to exercise those residual powers in certain ways, via a state constitution. Again the Supreme Court clarified that only four years after the First Congress convened, the same case that showed the U.S. Federal Government represented a sovereignty:

“From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it… and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the RevolutionEvery State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner…
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

Source: Statutory Law (Statutes, Ordinances, Codes)

The next source of law we have is called statutory law, which is a fancy way of saying laws passed by a legislature., called statutes. Sometimes this is called “black letter law” because it is literally printed in black ink on white paper; fixed in type so to speak; and is not changed except by another statute. It can be pinned down precisely which is not always the case for laws when examined in the context of a case or controversy.

 A Legal Code is simply a compilation of laws, statutes, or ordinances typically limited to a particular topic or topics and arranged in a logical fashion for convenience.

For some reason the idea exists among sovereigns and fellow travelers that codes are not laws but in fact in any legal code you will find every provision was passed by the legislature, though the organization and numbering might or might not be part of that law. I suppose technically one could argue that the code is not THE law; yet every provision in it IS a law.

Historically laws in the form of codes have been the way of governing an entire nation. For example the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic code, the Mosaic Code. More mundane versions might be the Vehicle Code or the Penal Code in some states. But they are simply compilations of law.

Ordinance is the term usually applied to local government laws, also passed by a legislative body such as a county board or town council. They are laws subordinate to federal and state law and constitutions. But they are in fact statutory or black letter law. They may be passed pursuant to a county or city charter or other founding document, or a state statute that designates how it is done.

The power of local governments in the U.S. is delegated by the State and local jurisdictions (cities, towns, counties) are creations of the sovereign State.

Some claim that statutes are not laws; but every dictionary (legal and ordinary) and every precedent and practice and court ruling back to the 13th century in our system says that they are…when the legislative authority of a sovereign nation (including in our case the individual States, which are sovereign) follows its defined processes to enact a statute, that is a legally binding law. There is an entire blog on this topic for your information.

If anyone claims statutes are not laws they should be asked to cite the document that says so. (No response is ever forthcoming to that request…unless they refer you to a blog of some kind. Blogs, including this one, are not authorities.)

Otherwise such claims are actually a challenge to the sovereign character of government, and the authority of its legislature to enact laws. The states are sovereign as noted in the Chisolm decision quoted above; they are not, as some claim, corporations.

The claim that statutes are not law is absurd and without any foundation in our legal tradition. As you will see every single legal and regular dictionary say that “statute” means “law”. No court case finds otherwise. No constitutional provision to the contrary exists.

Federal and State Laws (Statutes)

In the US, Congress is the national legislature, and each state has its own legislature.

In the case of Congress it is manifestly clear that it has the power to and it does pass LAWS Here is what our Constitution says:

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, … it shall become a law …If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Article I Section 7 U.S. Constitution

Legislative enactments by Congress are laws.  The Constitution says so. Congress can only pass laws that it is specifically given the power to pass by the Constitution (“enumerated powers”), though there are some “implied powers” identified by various court cases.

In every state there is a legislature, and the legislative branch by definition (the root word is lex, plural leges, meaning “law(s)” in Latin) make law. The legislative power is the power to make law.  One need only read the California Constitution to find an explicit statement about what a statute is:

“The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill.”
California Constitution Article IV Section 8 (b) (1) 

Even going back to the original California Constitution of 1849 (California’s current constitution was ratified on May 7, 1879 and has been amended over 480 times). We see clarity on this point; The Legislature makes laws:

Sec. 1. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly, which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of California;  and the enacting clause of every law shall be as follows:  “The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows.”

Sec. 17. Every bill which may have passed the Legislature, shall, **before it becomes a law,** be presented to the Governor.  If he approve it, he shall sign it;  …If, after such reconsideration, it again pass both Houses, by yeas and nays, by a majority of two thirds of the members of each House present, **it shall become a law,** … If any bill shall not be returned within ten days after it shall have been presented to him, (Sunday excepted,) **the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it,** unless the Legislature, by adjournment, prevent such return.

And States have the powers to pass laws in areas traditionally exercised by sovereign entities, except as limited by the U.S. or State Constitution, but also as empowered by the Tenth Amendment.

States have their own constitutions of course and state laws may not violate either the state’s constitution nor the U. S. Constitution by reason of the Supremacy Clause. In this scheme, the Constitution is supreme and federal laws are superior to state constitutions and laws unless they are found by the courts to be  unconstitutional.

And statutory law can overrule any common law provision.

No doubt a statute may take away a common law right…
Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877)[U.S. Supreme Court]

Source: Case Law (AKA Common Law)

“Case law,” is the American version of the term “common law” and it is broadly speaking, principles and understandings of law developed by the courts in the course of interpreting and applying the laws.

Courts often have to examine how a law works in a particular situation to resolve the questions that arise; what does the law mean? Does it apply here? How? In the real world the Legislature just cannot imagine every situation that may lead a party to court.

The Courts over centuries developed ways of analyzing laws, and principles of law applied in their interpretation; and that collected wisdom is ‘common law’. It is used to achieve a common answer in applying laws from case to case, to gain consistent results and make the law predictable. Thus if the same issue comes up later in another case, the answer is accepted and applied for consistency.

In the US a particular Federal appellate court that controls courts from a number of states calls its case law “circuit law” and any court dealing with an issue determines the “law of the (specific) case” because that is where it applies.

Note that courts and judges don’t make laws, that’s for the legislature, so case law can be changed by, and is subject to, statutes. Far from being supreme it is several ladder rungs below the Constitution and below Statute Law.

“No doubt a statute may take away a common law right, but there is always a presumption that the legislature has no such intention unless it be plainly expressed.”
Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877)[U.S. Supreme Court]

If the Congress doesn’t like how judges interpret a federal law, for example, it can change the law to make it clear what Congress intends. Likewise a state legislature can repeal or modify a law if it feels the judges got it wrong.

However when the Supreme Court rules on what The Constitution means, Congress has no power to define or redefine The Constitution…so that ruling cannot be changed unless the Constitution is amended, or the Court later decides the case law on that issue was incorrect or no longer applies.

Sovereign Citizens often cite “Common Law” as the authority for their beliefs. What do they mean? They seem to primarily mean “Natural Law,” discussed below.

What they do NOT seem to mean is what much of the legal world calls “common law” or in the U. S., “case law” which is a source of law.

Not a Source: Natural Law

Sovereign Citizens may make the claim that common law is supreme, by which they must meaneven though they often refer to Common Law in so doing — Natural Law”.

Natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally recognized by virtue of human reason or human nature. It is often tied to religious beliefs, such as that god gives us our rights as humans. Some use natural law synonymous with natural rights.

Natural law implies that there are binding rules of moral behavior that are obvious to everyone. While natural law principles absolutely underpin the Constitution and notably the Declaration of Independence, it in fact is not a set or settled form of law and is simply a set of principles that courts or legislatures use in framing law and the Constitution itself. While there is general agreement about what those principles are, there is no binding written document specifying them.

Many say it comes from God, and you know how many people claim to speak for him and say contradictory things. So we don’t rely on an unwritten set of beliefs, we write down what we believe in this sense incorporating it into the laws we create. We prefer a written form of law in our system.

And in any event we will always end up with issues of interpretation which our tradition leaves to the courts. And under our system the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

(Ironically English Common law is also used to understand the Constitution since that was the form of law used by the Framers and it is to English law we sometimes look to understand their intent. For example “natural born citizen” was a term well understood in English Common Law so the Constitution does not define it. “Treason” was also well understood, but the framers specifically did not want that definition so they redefined it in the Constitution.)

The idea that Congress is limited by “natural law” was more recently rejected. In dismissing a suit for the refund of all federal income tax, social security, and Medicare contributions withheld from the plaintiff’s wages between 1993 and 1994, Judge Kimba Wood wrote:

Plaintiff thus appears to argue that this Court should look to principles of natural law, or more accurately, his preferred principles of natural law, as opposed to the positive law by which it is bound. That, however, is not this province of this Court.”

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1798) (opinion dissenting in part):

If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice.

The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice.”

Under this principle of constitutional law, the courts cannot refuse to enforce the federal income tax merely because one or more judges believe that the tax is contrary to their concepts of “natural law” or “natural rights.”

Not a Source of Law: Rules and Regulations

Rules and regulations are not laws but properly adopted and applied they can have the force of law within their area of authority. To have the force of law they must be made pursuant to some law which actually authorizes them.

I often see this case misquoted for the proposition:

The common law is the real law, the supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”
Self v. Rhay
61 Wn.2d 261 (1963)377 P.2d 885

Well that seems clear enough; this quote also is offered to support the idea that statutes are not laws. The problem is that Self v. Rhay says no such thing. The quote is fraudulent. Those words are not there. Nothing like that is in the decision. 

But as said above the Constitution and Laws and Treaties made under it are the Supreme law of the land.

However, here are the important words that are in that decision, a place one gets to when one carries the idea of individual sovereignty to its extreme:

It follows that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, the stay of execution is dissolved, and respondent is directed to produce petitioner in the Superior Court for King County for setting the time of his execution in the manner provided by law.”

Anyone wishing to rely on these theories should consider seriously taking a more traditional approach to the law. The defendant didn’t use lawyers or present defenses because “the court ‘has no jurisdiction’ and is only able to hear ‘commercial cases'”. Perhaps he’d have gotten a death sentence anyway, but… this is not the sentence for a commercial infraction. It’s not about money. “The King or International Banker or the BAR” will not get richer for it.

Frequently quoted in this context:

All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules,and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…”
Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

This is a wonderfully supportive quote but once again it is simply made up; those words are not in the opinion; nor does the case conclude anything remotely like that.

That case is also cited as proof that courts are purely administrative, not judicial, but that is a complete misreading of the case, which revolved around a matter that was the subject of an administrative hearing. That case itself is an Equal Protection and Due Process claim under the Constitution filed in federal courts as a lawsuit, not an administrative hearing nor a ‘direct’ appeal from a hearing under statutory authority.

One of the most famous Supreme Court decisions ever made is quoted in support of the proposition:

All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”
Marbury v Madison, 5th US (2Cranch)137, 174, 176 (1803)

 Indeed the Marbury decision is the famous defining opinion of the Judicial Branch’s role in declaring laws unconstitutional and it does stand for that proposition. However,to say this is an absolute ban on rules or regulations is to misunderstand the grammatical meaning of it; to misconstrue the meaning of the key phrase: “which are repugnant to the Constitution”

If you think “which” modifies “rules and practices” you might conclude that it says rules and practices are repugnant to the Constitution. But if that were the case you can leave ‘which’ out of the quote to get the same result:

All laws, rules and practices are repugnant to the Constitution [and] are null and void”

Of course that also means NO laws re effective.

But every word in a legal document must be given meaning if it can, so instead, “which” modifies “repugnant to the Constitution” so that the proper understanding of this statement says would be:

Those laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void;
but those laws rules and practices which are not repugnant to the Constitution are not null and void.

The following words are not part of Marbury but are often found with the quote above, mostly because they have cut and pasted from someone who did the same and probably down a long chain of repeats:

Legislators simply don’t have the authority to rule make”

That is someone’s total mis-interpretation of the case. Of course, in most cases Legislatures don’t rule make (except for themselves); they create or empower executive bodies to do that, regulations can be complex, require much expert input, and change often. These are not tasks legislatures are good at. 

The Internal Revenue Code is one example of a fairly complete and detailed set of rules in the form of a law. And a code that is a law as well. But that’s unusual.

The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and Automotive Safety Act and many others create bodies such as the EPA and authorize them to adopt rules to achieve the ends the law seeks, to implement and execute the law, and those regulations when properly adopted have in fact the force of law.

Indeed at this writing British Petroleum (BP) is in court on many legal cases seeking to hold it liable for breaking rules regarding pollution of the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The regulations and underlying laws hold them responsible to those injured and also allow the agencies and courts to impose fines for the violations of rules and regulations. Those regulations dictate, for example, how much drilling ‘mud’ (fluid) and of what density must be used in certain situations to prevent wells from blowing out.

These are things no Legislature would have the time or knowledge to specify and which they could not quickly change if they got it wrong.

So the statutory goals and consequences are laid out in law and the agencies are given the power to regulate by rules, subordinate to the statute. And there is a defined process for adopting rules which must be followed. But then they DO have the force of law.

Also often cited is the famous Miranda case:

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

And that is correct. But it does not say, nor does it mean that ALL rule making or legislation is forbidden, rather it applies to only those rules and laws which actually abrogate rights secured by the Constitution.

Pretty basic grammar.

In fact, many rules and regulations and court decisions limit rights, but do not abrogate them. Indeed as we have discussed above, limits also play a role in protecting particular rights.

The sovereign citizen often relies on the notion that rights are absolute and cannot be restrained, infringed, or balanced, but if rights collide and no restraint is available, then might makes right, not law. Whoever is strongest will get unabridged rights and tough for the other guy and his rights.

The Rule of Law is the antidote.

Courts decide whether a rule or law abrogates a right secured by the Constitution (Marbury v Madison, ironically!); and Courts routinely hold that rights must be balanced against each other, so sometimes a right is restrained or restricted in order to give proper deference to a conflicting right. Indeed a massive share of decisions by the Supreme Court are focused exactly on how to balance one right versus another.

=                                 More Blogs by Philipem 1000                                    =

Sovereign Citizens and Fellow Travelers
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fD
Do You Need a License to Drive ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-mI

Sovereign Citizens and the Jurisdictional Gambit:
You Can’t Touch Me!
https://wp.me/p3nYC8-1q5
Sovereigns incorrectly cite 23 Court Cases,
(except they can’t count it’s 19), in their effort to show the courts
have no jurisdiction… much made up language in the rulings they cite

=                                                          The Law                                                          =
Are Statutes Laws?  What About Regulations ?
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Od

Strawman Theory and CAPITAL Letters
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-TB

A collection of court cases
  quoted regularly in response to sovereign citizen
ideas and challenges to the driver license laws.

=                                                  The US and the States                                                =

The United States Is A Corporation
(Or If You Prefer, It Can Be An Elephant
)
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fK

The US Became Bankrupt in 1933 &
Federal Reserve Notes are Not Legal Currency

http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fO

The United States is still a British Colony
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kz

There are Three United States
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fX

=                                                 The Courts                                                     =

A Lost 13th Amendment
Removes all Legitimacy from Courts
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-kI

All US Courts hear only Admiralty Cases
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fV

US Courts are not Admiralty after all,
but instead Equity Courts

http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

US Courts are Administrative, Not Judicial
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-fR

All Lawyers take a Secret Oath to Hide ‘The TRUTH
http://wp.me/p3nYC8-l2

Posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories | Leave a comment