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