Time: Tue Nov 05 20:51:40 1996 To: joyce@mlode.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: (no subject) Cc: Bcc: Joyce, I am pretty tired from accumulated exhaustion, and I need some time off, in addition to some time I must spend for clients. If you don't hear from me in a 2-3 days, would you please remind me to get back to you? I do want to give it my full attention, because you are a fan of mine (you just didn't know it until now). /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:34 PM 11/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul...This from my files. It was written in 1986 by a fellow >researcher. Comments? > Joyce > > > MYTH OF THE AMERICAN LAWYER > > 1. This is an updated summary of a paper dealing with the Lawyer >and the Law Merchant and the Common Law. It is inspired as a result of >recent research into the subject--and discovery of some interesting data >on the Origin of the American "lawyer". > 2. In England, there are two distinct and separate FORMS of "LAW" >practice. The first is the BARRISTER, and the Second is the SOLICITOR. > 3. The Solicitor operates under license of the "Crown" (now >parliament etc.). The Solicitor's entire loyalty is to the "Crown" and >the people as a CLASS--and the people as a whole (the "State). > 4. The Solicitor's loyalty and interest runs AGAINST the INDIVIDUAL >and AGAINST the LAW. The Solicitor's loyalty is entirely to "equity", >in all its forms. > 5. The BARRISTER, however, operates under no license from the >"Crown" or "State" at all. He is in effect the COMMON COUNSEL (a >representative for the COMMONER). His loyalty is solely to the >INDIVIDUAL and to the LAW. > 6. Now, the legal profession is quick to draw a line as the barrier >to knowledge and intelligence--which they call the "extent of the legal >memory" (about the year 1189 or the ascent of King Richard). This is >discussed in this Reporter's Paper COMMON LAW ORIGINS It is this >Reporter's opinion that the horror of going back--beyond 1189 to 1066 >Invasion of England by William ("The Bastard") 1, the Conqueror lies in >the fact that William the Bastard introduced foreign, alien and >dangerous concepts of rule to England--that of a manufactures "religion" >and "equity" (both words being of Franco/Roman polish origin). This >horror which the Lawyers and LAWYER JUDGES fear--is that it will be >discovered--that as a matter of ancient and customary common law--there >is NO SUCH THING AS A LAWYER--and therefore, NO such >thing as a lawyer judge. Going beyond 1066 they are afraid that we will >discover the LAW MERCHANT and finally that the Savior himself laid out >the COMMON LAW and the LAW MERCHANT for mankind to govern himself by >temporally (although all law and direction from the Savior is Not >temporal, but spiritual;"...my commandments are spiritual; they are >neither natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual..." LDS D&C >29:35). "Temporally" as used here meaning "while on this earth", for >purposes of the Author. They are afraid that we will discover that >under the LAW there is no need for "municipal" governments which breed >nests for bureaucrats (judges, lawyers, etc.) who plunder in the name of >law and order. > 7. Every advocate and apologist for municipal government seeks hard >and everywhere to discover authority for its existence (and little is to >be found--so they write a LAW to authorize it, providing the sought >after authority). The question is, "who/what on earth authorized the >writing of the law"? The bureaucrats as representatives of (and >parasites on) the "State" needs some kind of justification for their >station, and power to kill: >"The point at issue is not the history, but the VALIDITY of the social >and political order. What matters alone is not the historical but the >LEGAL BASIS of the State..." (MYTH OF THE STATE, Cassier, 1946). This >seeking for authority for the existence of the "State" is the seeking >for authority for the bureaucrats existence as a nonproductive parasite. >The arguments take on many forms, ie.: "the Social Contract", by >Rousseau: "divine origin", under which Kings claimed sovereignty on the >continent, then in England after 1066: > >"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no >power but of God: Powers that be--are ordained of God." Romans 13:1; and >the NATURAL/FUNDAMENTAL LAW described by Grotius (1625) in DE JURE BELLI >AC PACIS ("the law of war and peace"). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica >1968, Vol. 10:423 describes it as "remains one of the most IMPORTANT >books of all time...". Grotius, as the philosopher, recognized >principles which are today a part of the American Law and International >Law, as the Bible states: > >"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of >Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their >inner parts and write it in their hearts..." Jeremiah 31:33 > > NOTE > > In discussing Jefferson's creation in 1776: We hold these truth to >be self evident..."(Declaration of Independence). Cassier in MYTH OF THE >STATE says: "When Jefferson wrote these words, he was scarcely aware >that he was speaking the language of Stoic Philosophy. This language >could be taken for granted, for since the times of Lipius and GROTIUS it >had a common place with all the great political thinkers. The Ideas were >regarded as FUNDAMENTAL axioms that were not capable of further analysis >and in no need of demonstration, for they express the very ESSENCE of >man and the very CHARACTER of human reason." > 8.Thus we see there are a variety of bases upon which political and >municipal government is founded--some more akin to FREE AGENCY, most the >antithesis thereof, all are mere philosophy till the TRUTH is known. > 9. The Lawyers and Lawyer judges (and mainly their bosses, the >international banksters who control them through directives from the US >State Department by regular bulletins on international affairs) are >horrified at the thought of discovering the REAL ORIGIN of law, for it >will spell the end of their tyranny and parasitic activities. The truth >will destroy the so called "legal profession". The only reason it has >survived the past 100 years is that it is now a STATE SANCTIONED >(protected) EXTORTIONIST MONOPOLY of pseudo-intellectuals. They are >AFRAID OF THE TRUTH and want to keep us from discovering it--so they >invented the fiction of "legal Memory". > 10. Common law Rights privileges and immunities (see 42 USC 1983, >but particularly the NINTH Amendment) and POWERS (see TENTH Amendment) >were not wiped out by the Declaration of Independence, but were >FUNDAMENTAL, unalienable (couldn't be wiped out by King nor self) and >survived. > 11. Among those rights (common to all in England) is the right to be >represented by a non licensed, anti-government (anti-crown/anti-"State") >pro-LAW, pro-individual--individual called a BARRISTER. He was/is a >member of a private (nongovernment) organization (voluntary/exclusive in >nature) called the INNS OF TEMPLE (there being a number of "inns" within >the Temple)--where the LAW and the LAW MERCHANT are kept PRISTINE (for >purposes of this paper pristine), and undefiled by "equity" (Kings crud) >as per FEDERALIST PAPER #83 (Hamilton). The Barrister is the only one >who may practice in the presence of a JURY (common law court). > 12. He gets his name from the "Bar", thus he is a Bar-ist and with >some English machination in linguistics, a Bar-is-ter. The "Bar" is a >BAR TO EQUITY, and represents the Walls of London, which were a bar to >William the Catholic (1066) who NEVER DID CONQUER LONDON, where the LAW >MERCHANT was kept. The bar now is an alter like edifice at the gates of >the city of London. Custom of being the LAW, the Merchants (Freeman) of >London who pay the Queen's way, require her to regularly approach the >gates of London and stop at the BAR, and to TOUCH THE SWORD of the Lord >Mayor of London, which reestablishes the English common law and LAW >MERCHANT custom and that LAW overcomes equity, EQUITY IS SUBJECT TO THE >LAW, and that the so called "sovereign" over the FREEMAN of London, as a >result of MERCHANTS defending London from the designs of William the >bastard in 1066. This Customary ceremony >reestablishes the LAW, and I suspect if she ever once tried to evade >that custom, she would not survive the hour. > 13. It must be noted that the International Banksters, since the >establishment of the Bank of England, are in control of the Law and Law >Merchant, and in effect, the common law--and are abusing it grossly. >They are using their knowledge of the IMPERATIVE LAW MERCHANT to >subjugate and enslave the individual, the masses, and even the US, >through Rockafeller/Rothchild operatives who control the Federal Reserve >and US Congress. But that is not to say that the LAW is ruthless or >bad in itself. That is to say that it is as if matches and gasoline. >It can be our ENEMY or our FRIEND. If we practice not the law, we are >subject to the law as an equitable (unwhole) entity, for without the >law, we are unwhole, and subject to municipal--self appointed >caretakers--- who write a law to justify further law writing--so they >can take care of the unwhole by administering "equity" (some trick if >you can follow it). NOTE: Grotius is the father of the LAW MERCHANT as >International Law (jus gentium), although the LAW MERCHANT as a body of >the law can be traced back nearly 4500 years. > 14. Some insight can be gained into the operation and importance of >the INNS OF TEMPLE by reading under "INNS...", Ency Brit.. Of course >there are other in depth books on the subject (which I fear the book >burners are about these days). These must be obtained and preserved for >obvious reasons. We must become familiar with and practice the LAW >MERCHANT or remain and become-- if not already-- SLAVES. > > THE STATES AND THE COMMON LAW > > 15. English Common Law (statutes included) is part of the LAW of >each State--only in so far as adopted by the State (the people) >through statutes and supreme legislative acts (state Constitutions), see >Van Ness v Packard, 2Pet. (US) 137 at 143-144; Morgan v King, 30 Barb. 9 >(NY) at 12-15; Ewing v Nesbitt, 88 Kansas 708. > 16. In effect, the great DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE cuts off all >rights, privileges and immunities, authority and power which otherwise >the State (as a municipality/person) might have claimed. This includes >the BAD (ie. star chamber; absence of separation of powers, etc.) and >the good (if any). > 17. However, in the area of common law RIGHTS, privileges and >immunities (Due Process) in civil (private) matters, and those >contemplated by the NINTH Amendment, and powers (TENTH AMEND.) were >retained and were not cut off (see pr. 10), for the people and >individuals carried with them, the LAW from England, Norris v Harris, 15 >Cal. 226. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY > 18. The first principle of American Jurisprudence is that the law has >existed forever from the creation. The cases on common law etc., merely >comment on the law as it is discovered--as applies to each case/facts. >A period of monumental discovery has occurred in every century, dealing >with different areas of the law. The 16th Century is noted for one, the >17th for others, and so on. It is my opinion that the 19th and 20th >Centuries are no exception--and to the contrary of exception, we have >and will discover about the law--that which no one dreamed of and which >is already being secreted by the lackeys of the international banksters >(lawyers and lawyer-judges). > 19. Erie RR v Tompkins, 304 US 64, 58 SCt. 817, 82 LEd 1188, 114 ALR >1487 (1938) tells us that there is no general Federal common law. If >this is true (and it is ), then how can the Federal Government claim >"sovereign immunity"? Sovereign immunity is a common law, principle from >English general common law, which the Declaration of Independence cut >off for the States. Since the Federal Government is a Govt. of POWERS >delegated to it only by the States McCulloch v Md., 4 Wht. 316 (1918); >how can it be said that it has what a State does not have? Yes, there >are cases which uphold "sovereign immunity" for both the State and Fed. >Goats., but I think these are in error, and by correct pleading (after >some thorough research) these can be overruled or overcome in some >manner. The cases now available lead one to believe this: "Judges have >no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts." Bradley v >Fisher, 13 Wall (US) 335 (1871) "Government immunity violates the common >law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his >person or property." Fireman's >Ins. v Washburn County, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 NW 2d 840 (1957) "Immunity >fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes >care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to >its people." Stringer v Dilger, 313 F2d 536 (CA 10, 1963) > 20. I totally suspect that if it was discovered around the >time of the Civil War, by the lawyers of the time (seeking authority for >their deeds and plunder), that there is no such thing as "sovereign >immunity" and decided it best to make it look as though the government >had GRANTED the right to sue it, and so passed the Statute (public law) >now codified as 42 USC 1983 etc. (Civil Rights Acts). It was hidden >under the 14th Amendment which applies the Federal Bill of Rights to the >States, see class of cases: Malloy v Hogan, 378 US 1, 6 (1964) >overruling Twining v NJ, 211 US 78 (1908) per Duncan v La ., 391 US 145, >163 (1968) citing Palko v Conn., 302 US 319, 326 (1937). Thus the issue >of whether there is a COMMON LAW Right to sue the US or States was to >rest (once a lawyer has a procedural remedy under a statute, he seeks >not a messy Constitutional remedy, thus the issue is moot and perused no >further). > > THE CHANCELLOR AND IMMUNITY > > 21. The COMMON LAW ORIGINS was found that the Chancellor is the >fella that made NEW law as common law. That is to say, once a remedy >granted to one, it became available (common) to all. > 22. Can it be said that once the American Chancellor identifies >(discovers) by revelation (or what ever divine power he must have) what >the law is on a subject (given sets of facts)--it can be denied to >future litigants-- even if 42 USC 1983 etc. is repealed? On 3 counts , >I think not. FIRST, no statute can be written which is in DEROGATION of >Common Law Rights ie. to sue bureaucrats even in absence of statutes >granting such power (ie. 42 USC 1983). SECONDLY, under a statute which >merely restates common law (42 USC 1983) there has been made a common >law remedy, by virtue of the Chancellor's involvement in declaring what >that law is under the cases; and this is supported by the Government's >insistence of combining the Equity Court with the Law >Courts (even against Hamilton's warning in Fed. Paper #83). THIRDLY, the >Chancellor (in absence of a statute granting right to sue the Federal >Government Agents) in Bivins v Six Unknown US Scalawags, 402 US 388 >(1971) granted the right to sue, that is to say, created a remedy by >which redress was sought and obtained. That remedy created or >discovered (more properly described) by the Chancellor is now available >(common) to all. Such a right was granted accepted Flast's assertion of >a nonstatutory (common law) right to sue (remedy) on a Tax revenue >misapplication (religion) overruling (though not explicitly) Mass. v >Mellon, 262 US 447, 67 LEd 1078 (1923) per West's Const. Law by >Rossen/Sogg, pg. 102. Now the Courts and the Legislatures are >considering limiting that right or narrowing requirements for "standing" >(interest) to sue the government. However, liberalization may be the >rule (see US Const. Int. & Only US Cong., Jayson, 1971, p. 647 n. 6). > > RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL? > > 23. The United States Statutes at Large of 1789, the US Judiciary >Act, Section 35, states that there is a distinct difference between an >attorney (lawyer) and "assistance of counsel" as described in the SIXTH >Amendment. The 1789 Statutes were written while the Founding Fathers >were still alive, some of whose signatures appear on the Statutes. The >Intent of the Law, being the law see Nat. RR Assn. v NAORP, 414 US 453 >at 458; Stewart v Kahn, 11 Wall (78 US) 493; JC Penney v Commr., 27 TC >1013\, it is clear that in the Federal Courts one is not limited to a >"licensed" attorney, but can have a friend as assistance of counsel >etc.. This is affirmed by US v Scott, 531 F2d 1188 (diss. op.) where >laymen did all the work and argued the case in the Court. This right is >available to us as matter of EQUAL PROTECTION/APPLICATION OF LAW and Due >Process as applies to the States (supra) via the Fourteenth Amendment >applying also Gideon v Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963); see Utah Law >Review (U of U) 1975 Fall #2 on State v Phillips at page 594 and Notes >85 to 102 infra. This in a NUTSHELL spells the end of the American >Lawyer as being a Myth, for he cannot be forced upon anyone, statutes to >the contrary notwithstanding see 28 USC 1654; and your State's code >analog thereto for under such cases as Board of Medical Exmrs. v Blair, >57 U 516, 196 P 221 it is determined that such licensing is NOT a State >CREATED grant of power and authority of FRANCHISE as in Hale v Hinkel, >201 US 107, but merely a LICENSE under the police power for "welfare" >purposes (in the case of an attorney) or "health" in the case of a >Doctor. Just who do these judges think they are--telling us we can't >represent anyone in their courts? They are liars, thieves and >plunderers and incompetents ((just another form of "lawyer", dressed up >in black robe (or yellow sport clothes. > > FAIR TRIAL WITH A SOLICITOR? > > 24. I believe that there has never been a fair trial in any case >where a licensed "attorney" has been forced upon the unwilling >litigant. This is due to the fact that a creature of the State owes his >allegiances, his loyalty, his living, his life to the State, and will >not under any circumstances go beyond that States prescribed limits >(statutes, rules, customs usages of the >profession)--to make sure the Client gets all that is due him >procedurally and substantively. It is as simple as that! A suckling of >the State Supreme Court will never go against that court, even in its >manifest insanity (see U of U LR; State v Phillips, supra) and contempt >for law and its contempt for the individual. Additionally, the State >Appellate and Supreme Courts are deferring to the US Supreme Court any >ruling on a local issue, which may as a matter of Erie RR (supra) >doctrines--result in estopping the Federal Government in its Plunder. >Those issues should be resolved at the local level. Otherwise this >subtlety just discovered--will be a slow but sure POISON for our FREE >AGENCY. THE MYTH OF THE AMERICAN LAWYER IS THEREFORE PROVED as a matter >of common law. > 25. If government would be permitted the question of the >Constitutionality arbitrary of its own acts, those who are capable of >TYRANNY are also capable of perjury to sustain it! Government is >mandated to secure the right's of the citizens not to enjoy the 5th >Amendment through sophistry from perfunctory. > ### > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail