Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

Great Debates
261

I agree. He had refrained from using most of the FOTL jargon but that single paragraph asking for affidavits and posting of bond screams sovereign citizen. The phrase “remedy” is often heard by these types in court when the judge locks them up. They repeatedly claim that the judge isn’t offering them a “remedy.” Most of the judges politely explain that they can appeal his decision and that is their remedy. For some reason that isn’t good enough.

Josf, my previous answer didn’t address the substance (at least the parts I could understand) of you response.

[QUOTE=Josf]
You use quotes to fence-in the word remedy. That is a dead giveaway to me. A “public defender” is an individual. If you can tell me who I am dealing with, then I can speak to him or her. If the individual is a member of the BAR, then that is a dead giveaway to me.

[/QUOTE]

Respectfully, this paragraph is simply bizarre. I quoted the word “remedy” because, once again, I’m not sure what you mean by the term.

The question involved being arrested as a result of a violation of a clearly improper law and being hailed into either a state or federal law. I asked if one was preferable to the other. You said that you couldn’t answer unless I told you what your remedy was.

I think it is plainly obvious what your remedy is under either scenario. You post bond, hire your own counsel or if you cannot afford one, one is appointed. You have preliminary hearings and receive discovery from the state. Some time later, you have a trial in front of a jury where you can cross examine witnesses and so forth. The whole panoply of trial rights. After weighing the evidence, the jury finds you guilty of traveling on the Sabbath day and the judge sentences you to 5 days in jail and orders you to pay a $100 fine plus $167.50 in court costs and fees.

My question was whether the events in the above paragraph would be better in state or federal court. It is an abstract question and does not require you to know the name of the public defender or understand California law.

But you say if the public defender is a member of the “BAR” then that is a “dead-giveaway” to you. Why do you capitalize the word bar?

What is it a dead giveaway about? Of course, the public defender will be a licensed attorney, and in most states, be required to be a member of the state bar. I am a licensed attorney and member of the state bar. I’m not sure if that now includes me in the secret cabal of people trying to deny people their basic freedoms.

I don’t think it does since I am appointed to indigent cases and put in many hours researching issues to attempt to suppress evidence and get some of these obviously guilty people out of charges because their rights were violated. I’ve argued that murderers should go free because of improper searches and seizures.

But it seems that if I was appointed to represent you, my membership in the state bar would make you suspect. First, I am required to join the bar to practice law. Second, to be licensed to practice, I went to school for three years studying constitutional, statutory, and common law. I passed the bar exam and continue to read cases and other materials to apply real life situations to the law. I study history and have read the writings of the founding fathers. I’m proud of my legal scholarship, and I feel that if you were charged with a crime, I would give you a powerful defense. However, you would see me as someone who sold out.

I’m not so much offended by the allegation as I would feel sad for you as a client, especially if I had a good defense for you, because your belief in this system of affidavits, oath, bond, contracts, admiralty law and the like will harm my efforts to help you.

Read the Meads v. Meads case. The legal jargon that you cite is an impressive sounding list in a wall of text, but it has absolutely no application to law that you will see today. It also has no application to historical or some secret law that we should be operating under.

Posters here have been glad to debate you. Instead of arguing from first principles and defending your position, you simply reaffirm your position with more legal jargon. I would like to know the basis for your belief that these things are required under the law. Why does it matter that the public defender is an “individual” who is a member of the “BAR”? When you ask which “court is the court” then step back and tell us uninformed readers why that means anything, because to us, it is painfully obvious which court we are talking about.

In order to be comprehensible, back up and tell us what specifically is wrong with the way we do things. Don’t beg the question by merely reaffirming your belief that we are fighting John Adams (that same guardian of freedom who authored the alien and sedition acts). Use terms as commonly understood and not those in use by your organization. For example “criminal rule” is meaningless to us. Please use regular English.

262

UltraVires claims:

The individual I know is not a member of the California Bar association and the information he offers is not the same information offered by a member of the California Bar association: as a general rule. I am not now arrested (held) and in captivity based upon an accusation made by someone, and I am not now exchanging information with any members of the BAR, so the scenario you offer is purely hypothetical, and subject to whichever information is exchanged in fact, between me, any members of the BAR, and anyone I find who may be able to help defend me.

Are you claiming (in context to our debate) that I must accept the deals offered by a member of the California BAR?

I know, as a matter of fact, that I do not have to accept the deal offered by members of the BAR when they claim that only BAR members offer lawful defense, or whichever claim may be made in whichever words.

When words are written and signed in the form of an affidavit the “plausible deniability” options are lessened; the affiant can still claim that he “was only kidding” or she “had my finger’s crossed,” but the act of recording the testimony of the affiant on paper, witnessed, signed, and even stamped with an oath taking, bonded, Notary Public officer holder, constitutes a bonded word with a bonded individual that counts as a lawful testimony, a link (bond) that constitutes legal liability, connecting the words stated by the affiant to any subsequent deeds, acts, done by anyone who is directed (caused to act) by those words.

The obvious examples can include an affiant claiming that Jane Doe murdered John Doe right in front of the affiant. Jane Doe goes through trial, based upon the affiants testimony, and it was determined by a jury, as a lawful fact, that Jane Doe was not in the same State when John Doe was murdered, and therefore the affiant’s testimony is inculpatory evidence that inculpates the affiant more so than a “she said, he said statement,” in the heat of the moment, something that may not be remembered very well by those who heard what she said when she said that Jane Doe murdered John Doe right in front of her.

So, in context of your example offer of what I would do in a situation concerning my arrest, and I am offered a deal to only deal with BAR members, then my answer to you remains the same answer offered already. What advice do these BAR members offer to me, and I’ll compare their advice with the advice offered to me by an known competitor who is not a BAR member.

There were no California BAR membership organizations at the time of the Bill of Rights, so making a claim, if that is what you are doing, that I, or anyone, must accept the deal offered by BAR members, to use only their competitive services, and no other competitive services, will be a difficult case to be made, going back to the principles of relation. The people (all the people without exception) create a power of defense, or law, and not the other way around, where the law enforcers, once in power, claim that they alone have the power over the people.

If you, or anyone else, offers me a deal to only deal with BAR members in any case where I am accused of some punishable activity, then I’ll demand that claim in writing, signed by the one making the claim, I’ll also demand their oath of office, and their bonding information, and if none of that information is made available to me, then I will add to my case file my own affidavit signed, witnessed, and notarized attesting to the fact that the claim made to me concerning the deal offered to use only BAR members was not confirmed by those making the claim in any lawful manner whatsoever.

This, by the way, is not news:

http://www.ncpublications.com/colonial/bookshelf/Tracts/Nutbush%20Address/nutbush.htm

Those who were called that Antis were behind the Bill of Rights.

I can read English.

The claims made by Union members when Union members claim that they are the only ones in town that know precisely what they are doing when they take their pounds of flesh from their targeted victims are half true claims; when those claims are made so as to frighten someone into believing those half truths.

The rest of the story, the hidden truth, is easy to understand in plain English.

Even before those amendments were added to the Constitution of 1787 the words of at least one judge in at least one case spells out the law of the land.

Is it a fact that I must employ a Union member in my defense, or is it a fact that I can employ a more competitive option?

Do you claim by your words that I have no option other than a BAR member for my defense in case I am in need of defense?

263

Thank you for clarifying the type of people you associate with.

Nutters.

264

Yep, I’m done here.

265

Then the individual you know is not qualified to assist you in a criminal case.

Yes, of course this is a hypothetical. You are not really charged with travelling on Sunday. But if you were (putting aside the real question of whether this was better under state or federal authority) you have the choice of hiring a lawyer, if you are indigent, being appointed a lawyer, or representing yourself. The licensing requirement to practice law is a sort of consumer protection. Society won’t let people who are not versed in the law practice it. For example, they will not let your non-lawyer friend represent you because the end result will be a conviction for you.

Current legal procedures and the Constitution that you dislike provides a far better protection than mere affidavits. The Defendant in this hypothetical can insist that the witness appear personally in front of the jury, be given the opportunity to examine the accuser, and the accuser is placed under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury for lying. The witness may be subject to civil suit for perjury.

Why does signing an affidavit in front of a notary public make this somehow better?

Explain these principles of relation. Yes, you must only hire a license lawyer to defend yourself in court just like I must hire only a licensed electrician to rewire my home. The laws prevent fraud and corruption by allowing unskilled people to perform a job best left to professionals. If you don’t like those laws, advocate for their repeal, but there is no fundamental, natural right to be represented in court by this unnamed individual who has no training in the law.

No, the bar organizations didn’t exist at the time of the Bill of Rights, but so fucking what? Seat belt laws and drunk driving laws didn’t exist either. Since the Bill of Rights states have enacted consumer protection laws to prevent untrained people from practicing professions which require knowledge. What provisions of the Bill of Rights are violated by these laws?

Demand away. I am under no obligation to prove you with my oath or bonding information. You must first made a prima facie case that you believe that I have not taken an oath. My information is publicly accessible on the state bar website to confirm that I have been admitted to the bar. I would not waste my time by providing you with meaningless information unless you had a reasonable belief that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Your affidavit “signed, witnessed, and notarized” could be better served by using it as toilet tissue. You may only use licensed attorneys, or represent yourself in court. It’s part of validly enacted state law.

Do you have a cite that you may demand this information?

By my words and the law, you may either represent yourself or use a member of the state bar to defend you.

266

Please stay. I want this man to provide solid legal authority for these outrageous claims. I won’t accept cherry picked quotes from 1777, or bald assertions about “relation” or anything else. I want hard law here.

Of course, if he shirks away or continues to quote walls of meaningless text, I’ll be out of here soon, but this is an opportunity to expose this ridiculous movement.

I would think that in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we should all participate, if not to convince Josf, but so that this thread remains and can be linked as a debunking of this garbage which is becoming far too prevalent.

267

We did participate, but by using insider jargon and answering questions that haven’t been asked instead of the questions that have been asked, the OP has shown that he is not here to participate in any meaningful conversation, but to lecture us as a professor to his students. Remember that this thread started with presumptions that we were to accept as fact without question, and has stayed that way pretty much throughout the entire thread. Unless he can show that he can answer a simple question directly and without a page-full of insider-jargon laden material about Adams and the hos favorite Bible verse, I see no reason to continue.

268

It can’t happen as long as he and reality have different ideas as to what “solid legal authority” actually means.

269

Why is he capitalizing BAR? As far as I can tell, you don’t even need to capitalize the B unless it’s at the start of a sentence or in a proper noun i.e. the Uniform Bar Examination.

270

Further Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule are expressed as:

Side B:

“For example, they will not let your non-lawyer friend represent you because the end result will be a conviction for you.”

Side A:

Two examples of people who are not Union BAR members, readily available information for anyone who cares to know are linked now:

Those who work effectively at defending the innocent from the guilty do not need a Union card, or "license" as Side B so often claims. In a free country with free markets working for people, the FORCE of competition works as a collective sum total of individual voluntary choices that constitute a demand, and that demand is the FORCE that works upon suppliers who compete to offer individual choices to meet that demand with higher quality and lower cost supplies including the demand for and the supply of defensive services.

Claims by Side B of absolute authority over effective defense commanded by their exclusive Union of Law Professionals are proven false in many cases where non-Union (non-“licensed”) competitors manage to do just fine without the “professional help,” that is “said” to be necessary.

Someone making these false claims without placing their word, their bond, their professional career on the line, under oath, is obviously proving that they too know that such claims are false. Someone, on the other hand, suggesting, advising, offering, words warning against non-“licensed,” and non-“Union,” defense can certainly be an example of very good advice if the one being advised is someone thinking that they can face a modern form of Summary Justice, in a Summary Justice Court, with a “plea” spoken out as “pro se in rem.”

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm

Foolishness does not require a license any more than knowing the law requires a license.

271

Why do you capitalize “BAR”?

272

SovCits believe that all-caps are a sign of illegitimate gov’t authority, designed to suck people into accepting an illegal agency by contract law. The fact that your name on your Driver’s licence is typically all-caps is one example. If you accept the driver’s licence, you have inadvertently entered into a contract validating their illegitimate authority.

273

Like Czarcasm, I think it’s already apparent that Josf is just spouting gibberish and will continue to do so as long as people keep responding to him. I see no point in continuing.

As well, I deal with the SovCits often enough in my practice that I have a limited tolerance for dealing with them in my off time. :slight_smile:

In conclusion, I’m reminded of Churchill’s definition of a fanatic: “One who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

274

As opposed to the license being created from a database that derives from older databases where data entry was keyed in all caps because the keyboards were built to use only upper case to reduce the time it took to enter data in mixed case and the time it took the older CPUs to perform edits on multiple case texts? How odd. That is a level of paranoia that is seriously going out of its way to find a conspiracy of which to be afraid…

275

Thing is, his quotes from Adams are insightful and coherent.

That is to say, Adams was insightful and coherent. It’s like Josf is building a wall using Adams’s high-quality bricks but his own mortar mix of stale marshmallow and rancid peanut butter.

276

This part isn’t a debate. You may not practice law without a license. Full stop. Do so and you will commit a crime. Your quote does not support your position. Do you have a legal cite that practicing law without a license is a God-given right?

Yes, we do need a license. Your argument that such licensing requirements interfere with a free market are probably the only string of words that begin to make sense. Why do you capitalize FORCE? I disagree with your argument because a government regulation of the free market which serves to protect consumers is not a violation of anyone’s rights.

I cannot be in the business of wiring your home because I do not have an electrician’s license. By prohibiting me from being in that business, the state is protecting you as the consumer from my lack of knowledge of wiring. I would probably accidentally set your house on fire or otherwise do an improper job because I lack the skills necessary to wire homes. The state has a procedure whereby a person must show their skills to be competent to practice a certain trade, and when they do so, they receive a license.

The public can then choose among licensed individuals, knowing that any of the people that they choose has met the minimum competency requirements for that job.

Now you might disagree with the necessity of licensure. That is your privilege and right as a citizen. You may write your legislators and work to elect people to the legislature that will vote to repeal licensing laws. If your side gets enough votes, then we live in a society without such laws. That is how things are supposed to work: we govern based upon the consent of the governed. The people, through their representatives, have decided that in order to practice law, one must have a license.

There is nothing illegal or criminal about this.

That is a point of argument you may use in your favor when debating the need for a law license in order to practice law. It is not an inexorable command that it is somehow criminal or unlawful to require one. I’m not a licensed plumber, but I ran PVC pipe to my back room and installed a washer and dryer. It works, nobody died, and nobody was hurt. The state still says that I cannot apply my knowledge of plumbing to make money because I don’t have a license. It doesn’t violate my rights or anyone else’s rights so long as these licenses are available on a non-discriminatory basis. Again, see the last paragraph.

Further, why the need for the term “Union of Law Professionals” again capitalized, again using language in a way that nobody else uses the language? I don’t consider myself in a “Union.” Yeah, I pay my bar dues and get a newsletter each month, but I don’t participate in anything. If I didn’t have to join as a condition of my license, I would not. I talk to other attorneys in court, like some, dislike others, but we work together and against each other just like people in other professions. We aren’t part of a secret cabal trying to screw people over.

Again, do you have a cite that a judge or attorney is required to be placed under oath and post a bond when giving the non-controversial advice that one needs a license to practice law?

Such a claim that these FOTL “attorneys” will cause you to be convicted is not “obviously false.” It is absolutely true. Just because you can cite to a couple of cases where the judge dismissed something does not make it true. Blind squirrel, acorn, and all of that.

277

That’s just what someone in a secret cabal trying to screw people over would say!

278

Side B claims:

The Union known as the BAR is a very powerful Union. The people linked (many people are not linked so any assumption that there are only 2 people advocating law or “practicing law” as Union Members call it) are Carl Miller and Eddie Craig. I know of a few people in California whose experience as advocates of law (not using the trademarked “practicing law” terminology) whose advice is also very competitive compared to the advice offered by a Union Member.

So the claim of “Full stop.” only works when a false claim of being a Union Member “Practicing Law” is made by someone who is aware of the Union and how the Union works.

That is no different than the Teamsters Union. Someone falsely claiming to “practice truck driving” as a Teamster will find themselves at “Full stop.” soon enough…

Side B:
Union Members Practice Law (non-union members are not allowed to Practice Law)

Side A:
Carl Miller, Eddie Craig, the people I know in California, do not belong to the Union and they do well (within obvious limitations) when dealing with the Law Enforcement process; they know better than to make any false claims concerning “Practicing Law” as dictated within the Union.

Side B claims that something I said was an argument offered by me. I do not argue; what would be the point?

As to the question of protecting consumers the lawful practice (practicing law without the trademarked Union Membership enforcement) there was, is, and probably will continue to be a practice known as bonding. Insurance is taken out by someone who offers a service to everyone else and the insurance bond covers knowable liabilities associated with errors, omissions, risks, damages, costs, and even crimes perpetrated by the bonded agent who offers the service to the public at large.

That is a well known, well used, and competitive practice working for all the people who consume services offered by individuals offering services. The individual is bonded and if the individual causes very high costs (due to negligence, ignorance, stupidity, accident, or criminal malice aforethought) borne by the consumer, then the bonding company pays out those costs.

That is not a bad deal according to much practice in history; and it is voluntary.

More Side B claims:

Your claims are noted, and my real world experience affords me competitive information that confirms which Side you are on, divided by this notion of a State (legal fiction) protecting people from themselves. Your Side certainly does make that offer repeatedly. There is a great advantage in collective funding, or insurance, whereby bonding (which requires licensing) affords individuals access to very large collective funds in cases where accidents occur. If the claim from Side B is such that no one works without a license, or a bond, then such claim from Side B is merely wishful thinking.

Someone paying someone to do work often looks for information concerning the ability to do the work, or competency, and if the free market buyer accepts the risks, then a free market exchange occurs, and this happens many times, in many places, without bonding, without licensing, and often the work done is inventive, adaptive, and higher quality, and lower cost than the work done by those who follow the herd with their ideas about legal fictions.

Inspiration for a bit of humor:
“The public can then choose among licensed individuals, knowing that any of the people that they choose has met the minimum competency requirements for that job.”

What do they call the worst student who barely passes the BAR exam?

An Attorney. :eek:

Presumption from Side B:

Since State enforced bonding also requires State enforced licensing there are fewer independent bonding firms, and fewer independent licensing firms, but that does not mean that they do not exist, where the independent (free market) firms compete with the subsidized State bonding, and subsidized State licensing firms.

I do not know of any independent bonding, or licensing, firms in America, but my guess is that they exist in some competitive form.

The competitive idea of bonding, and the competitive idea of certifying (or licensing) competency in any field, are certainly good, competitive, free market, adaptive, high quality, and low cost, productive processes used by people in voluntary associations.

Those who claim that their idea is necessary often set firmly into Side B.

Breathing is necessary if the idea is to remain alive. Your version of State subsidized Union (monopoly) control over what you call licensing is yours, not mine, so how can I agree or disagree either way?

I can certainly show why your viewpoints fail to constitute agreement. Your words do not agree with the words of John Adams, for one example, when the words concern the voluntary nature of federal association.

Side B restates the Majority Rule fabrication:
“That is your privilege and right as a citizen. You may write your legislators and work to elect people to the legislature that will vote to repeal licensing laws. If your side gets enough votes, then we live in a society without such laws. That is how things are supposed to work: we govern based upon the consent of the governed. The people, through their representatives, have decided that in order to practice law, one must have a license.”

The concept of consent of the governed includes:

When some people start attacking other people the nature of consent is destroyed by the aggressors.

Consent of the governed includes trial by jury and redress of grievances.

It has been known since Ancient times that Majority Rule is a fraud.

I ran out of time to continue.

279

Why are you writing it as BAR?

Please pseudo-explain in 3000 words or less.

280

Your argument seems to be that there is no need for licensing laws so long as someone takes out a bond and/or is insured against damage by his or her shoddy work. That’s a fine argument. Make it to your state representative and try to get the law changed.

You confuse me, though, with your statement that a State is a legal fiction, but relied so much on their sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. Again, please argue from first principles and present a cohesive statement of what you believe went wrong, and how society should be today had we not went down that improper path.

You argue against the licensure laws by quoting John Adams and a “federal association.” What in the hell does John Adams’ opinions on the relationship between states and national government have to do with laws regulating who may practice law?

Further, you do have a right to a trial by jury. You do have a right to petition for a redress of grievances. Just because Congress or your state legislature may not act upon your petition in a way that you consider favorable does not harm that right. You do not have a right to a particular result.

Also, why do you keep using the word “competitive” as if it is some magic word? And I would also ask, along with Bryan Ekers, for the reason why you capitalize “BAR”