The American Legal System
Is Not What You Think It Is

What I Have Learned So Far

Anyone who has a knowledge of American history — and I'm not referring to what the government run propaganda education regime teaches in the public school system, but rather with first hand source material — knows with unquestioned certainty that in truth, according to that history, the American republic, for all intents and purposes, ended on March 27th, 1861 when seven southern states seceded from the Union and Congress adjourned sine die, without a quorum necessary to establish a new session of Congress. From that point on a revised agenda for the United States was being planned and implemented by private (both domestic and foreign) banking concerns on behalf of its hidden (or secret) patron, the Roman Catholic Church. The period of de jure (or in law) legal matters in the courts was shortly destined to begin a gradual decline over the decades to follow as a result of the war being fomented with the contentious Southern states by the newly elected President Lincoln.

For the gullible American public of the time, the writing in the polititial discourse had been on the wall regarding the possibility of the secession of Southern states in the years leading up to the 1860 November elections. To use a favored term of the contemporary media, the narrative in the press at that time went that the predominately agrarian Southern states were balking at the progressive stance that one candidate for the presidency, Abraham Lincoln, took regarding the ending of slavery. Ten of these Southern states balked so much that they left Lincoln’s name off the ballot. Not one vote was cast for Lincoln in the Southern states. Yet, despite that Lincoln, in a four man field vying for the Office, won the popular vote with a miserly 40% of the vote (ostensibly based on the popularity of his anti-slavery stance in the Northern states) and garnered enough electorial votes to capture the presidency.

As far as the political interests of the South were concerned, any national presidency which included Abraham Lincoln was a non-starter. He threatened the South’s way of life and economy by proposing the national end of slavery, the prevailing source of cheap labor for the mainly agarian Southern states which in turn supplied the Northern manufacturing and other industrial concerns with much of its raw material. As far as the South was concerned, the whole American economy at that time was being threatened. And most assuredly, the economy of the South was on the chopping block should an abolitionist ln be elected. [Somehow, this sounds eerily familiar to current events occurring in America.]

By 1860 the banking business in the United States had undergone several changes while generally being able to maintain solvency. The second central bank established for the nation — the Bank of the United States — had shut its doors in 1841, its charter not being extended by Congress. Yet by December of 1861, eight months after the precipitation of the War Between the States by Lincoln ostensibly to preserve the Union, the de facto federal government — operating outside of law as “a monocratic military despotism”[1] — and its Treasury which had been printing greenbacks to finance the War while at the same time suspending convertibility of paper into specie, were about to take on changes that would reverberate well into the future. Foreign financiers were leery about accepting the greenback as payment for goods, and therein lies all you need to know about one of the more important sources of the conflict, and why Lincoln wanted to maintain the South in the Union. He needed their economic input to help service the national debt.

If you want to comprehend the gradual degradation of the American legal system, you have to trace its history back to its beginnings in order to discern the cause of its present condition. Virtually from the beginning, the legal system was set up in order to collect on the debt owe to the King of England (see the newsletter edition The New Face of War! Part Two for an explanation), who had financed both sides in the war that is being called the Revolutionary War.

International law allows for the collection of debt between two countries under Admiralty and Maritime law. Once you figure out that the United States Constitution was essentially a bankruptcy instrument which established the United States as part of a trust set up in order to clear off the debt with Mother England after the so-called Revolution, then you begin to see how the Inner Temple (one of the four Inns of Court of the English Bar which is a professional association for barristers and judges) within the City of London became connected to the legal system in the United States. The way you (as the monarch of England) collect debt from someone or some legal entity (the thirty-three united States of America) who doesn’t want to pay is through the court system by setting up your own legal apparatus to do so.

Strikingly the modern day Inner Temple is an independent unincorporated organization which operates as a trust. It has approximately eight thousand (8,000) members and roughly four hundred fifty (450) applicants apply to join each year. According to one account, although the Inn was previously a disciplinary and teaching body, these functions are now shared between the four Inns of Court, with the Bar Standards Board (a division of the General Council of the Bar) acting as a disciplinary body and the Inns of Court and Bar Educational Trust providing education.  

In order to fully appreciate and understand the importance of the advent of the Temple, it is necessary to note that the history of the Inner Temple begins in the early years of the reign of Henry II (1154–1189) when it was established by the Knights Templar in London to a new location on the banks of the River Thames. And who are the Knights Templar, you might ask? Good question.  The Knights Templar or simply the Templars, were a Catholic military order founded in 1119, headquartered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem through 1128 when they went to meet with Pope Honorius II. They were recognized in 1139 by the papal bull Omne datum optimum. The order was active until 1312 when it was perpetually suppressed by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox in excelso. This early history is important as it lays a foundation in law for what was later to come.

Even more revealing about the Templars is the fact that they were a favored charity throughout Christendom, and grew rapidly in membership and power. They were prominent in Christian finance. At one point they managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, and developed innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking. They built their own network of nearly one thousand (1,000) commanderies and fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land, and arguably formed the world’s first multinational corporation. This is all relevant history which we will touch upon briefly in order to provide the historical context for one half of the legal system established in America.

The Templar Order, though its members were sworn to individual poverty, was given control of wealth other than through direct donations. For example, a nobleman who was interested in participating in the Crusades might place all his assets (in trust, perhaps one of the first formal trust creations in law in the Middle Ages) under Templar management while he was away. The Templars accumulated wealth in this manner throughout Christendom and the Outremer (the term “outre-mer” is French for “overseas,” and refers to the four Crusader states which were feudal polities created by the Latin Catholic leaders of the First Crusade through conquest and political subterfuge). Take note of the fact that the interests of the Templars in the Outremer brings in the element of international law jurisdiction. International law deals exclusively with legal fictions and, more importantly, the presumption of legal fictions which has its basis in the Law of the Sea.

Let’s continue with this revealing brief history. In 1150 the Templars began generating letters of credit for pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land: pilgrims depositing their valuables with a local Templar preceptory before embarking, received a document indicating the value of their deposit, then used that document upon arrival in the Holy Land to retrieve their funds in an amount of treasure of equal value. This innovative arrangement was an early form of banking and may have been the first formal system to support the use of cheques. It improved the safety of pilgrims by making them less attractive targets for thieves, and also contributed to the Templar coffers.

The apple (in terms of the Templars, that is) never falls far from the tree (the Catholic Church). The history of this account provides us with insight into later developments in law. Although the Templars were eventually “suppressed” (at least as far as the public was concerned), their being essentially a Roman Catholic organization providing a front operation for the Catholic Church’s financial interests, it provides the Church with a private claim it can make in court under a veil of secrecy!

A veil of secrecy? How do they get away with that, you ask? Because in law (that is, the system of common law between ordinary people) concealment of a material fact can nullify a complaint or claim. So how does the Church assert a veil of secrecy over a court proceeding and not be breaking the law? Well, without having been educated by its law guild (the Inner Temple and the various Bar Associations around the world) presuming that the answer lies somewhere within that curriculum, your guess is as good as mine. However, I will offer a guess which is based upon the given facts thus far. 

Once you realize the entity with which you are dealing and the capacity in which it is acting when you enter a government courtroom being run by a state Bar Association with trained Bar Guild attorneys and judges, the answer, perhaps, reveals itself. You must remember that the unincorporated Inner Temple trained attorneys and legal personnel belong to a private legal guild called the BAR, which has its own laws, perhaps based upon the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church in order to disguise certain aspects of its law from the public. Therefore a Roman Court (which essentially is what you are walking into in traffic court) does not operate according to any true rule of law, but rather by a presumption of the (private) law it is based upon. To be more accurate, it isn’t just one presumption of law, it is twelve presumptions of law. We will return to this anomalous fact of the presumption of law a bit later. 

It is important to take into consideration the fact that the Inner Temple is unincorporated. Why is that important? Because that means it acts outside of any country’s legislative written law, but rather by statute written by the legal guild itself which makes its law private law. So that whenever you enter a government’s courtroom, the first form of law you are first faced with having to overcome is the presumed superior claim the Catholic Church has over your body and soul as a legal entity “lost at sea”!

A brief aside is in order here. Although I normally abhor word play when reading about how some principle of law is being applied, in this case it is wholly reasonable as it helps one to recognize the, perhaps twisted, reasoning that one side of an issue [the Vatican] uses to justify it’s actions over another [people or “human creatures”]. As many readers are already aware if they have done any research at all on the makeup of the contemporary American court system, the traffic court seems to operate from the standpoint of Admiralty law or the Law of the Sea. This is not just empty conjecture, it is a proven fact. International law is based on the Admiralty Maritime law jurisdiction. So, whether the court admits it or not — and in most cases it will not admit it if asked directly — we are dealing with the Law of the Sea in traffic court.

Now to the word play. If you look at the etymology of the English word “soul” you will find that it derives from a Germanic word saiwalo which means “that belonging to the sea,” which word itself is derived from the root word saiwa or “sea,” and is based on the early Germanic belief that “souls originate in and return to the sea.”  The term “see’ comes from the Latin word “sedes" meaning “seat” which refers to the Episcopal throne or cathedra. The term “Apostolic See” can refer to any see founded by one of the Apostles, but when used with the definite article, it is used in the Catholic Church to refer specifically to the See of the Bishop of Rome, whom the Church views as successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles.[2] 

At this point you might reasonably be asking yourself, “How did I become involved in an Admiralty case when I am on dry land?” The thought itself is immensely confounding and puzzling, to say the least. It almost seems the more one tries to reason it out, the less clarity one finds to justify such a circumstance. That is until one comes across the historical precedents being used by the Vatican to maintain its claim. The Catholic Church uses two legal personalities with which to conduct its international affairs. The first is as an International state known as the Vatican City State. The reigning Pope is legally considered to be its Head of Government. The second personality is as the supreme legal personality above all other legal personalities by which all property and creatures on Earth are subjects.

The term Sedes Sacrorum literally translates to “Holy See” — Latin sedes for seat or see, and sacrorum for holy — and has been used to refer to the legal apparatus as a whole by which the Roman Catholic Pope and its Curia of Bishops claim historical recognition as a sovereign entity with superior legal rights.  So the Catholic Church’s Holy See envisions itself as the Great Shepherd (leader or ruler) of the World. This is plain to recognize in Pope Boniface VIII’s 1302 landmark declaration and Papal Bull Unam Sanctum wherein he strengthened the legal vehicle of the Holy See by issuing the bold statement: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” To further extend its legal strength using its second personality, the Catholic Church considers any region controlled by one of her bishops a See subject to its jurisdiction through treaty. 

It is this second personality which claims your body and soul based upon a series of Papal Bulls issued over several centuries beginning with the infamous 1302 Papal Bull Unam Sanctum that has not been rebutted by any other international legal entity. Very simply, Unan Sanctum was in essence an Express Trust that claimed control over the whole planet Earth, and effectively (in International law, that is) declared the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as the “Supreme Ruler of the world.” The legal enforceability of the second personality of the Catholic Church as the Holy See is dependent on the continued adherence to legal statute, conventions, confenants and definitions as have been accumulated since the Middle Ages concerning the primacy of the Pope over all property and creatures. These statutes, conventions and covenants form the foundation of today’s modern legal system of most states in the world.

As preposterous and nonsensical as this explanation sounds in the present day, this is the raison d’état (literally “reason of state,” or the diplomatic or political reason) provided by governments the world over for honoring the Vatican’s claim through treaty. That and the fact that governments relish their ability to exert power and control over the people rather than vice versa. But then, when you think about it, and if you’ve done a bit of research, the world’s governments, for the most part, have all been transformed from their original capacity as unincorporated states or nations, ostensibly serving their citizens the people, into incorporated administrative government service organizations (GSOs) which, using the misdirection of assumed authority from its hidden patron the Catholic Church, ultimately serve the Vatican’s interests.

You can confirm the fact that states, cities and even counties are incorporated entities by looking up entities like the STATE OF ARIZONA or COUNTY OF MARICOPA (or your own state and county) on Dun and Bradstreet to verify their incorporation for yourself. The process of incorporation places these entities into a totally different (and non-original constitutional) jurisdiction from the original unincorporated state governments. These STATE OF STATE and COUNTY OF COUNTY entities are not duly elected governments by and for the people of a state, their officers held as fiduciary trustees for the state citizens, but rather are business entities posing as legitimate government. They have been bought and paid for by their unholy patron the Vatican.

To return to the issue of the American legal system and how its courts operate, there are two sides or forms of law which a traffic court can hear. The first side or form of law (private law or better known as “public [corporate] policy”) of which must first be rebutted before you can gain entry into the second side of law (public law) as it was once passed into law by legitimate state legislatures. In other words, what passes for law, as far as the public is conditioned to know, is merely the corporate by-laws, the public policy, of the incorporated STATE OF STATE. If you try to use the legal processes of legitimate public law (e.g. the Law of the Land based in common law) through the use of an affidavit in commerce without first rebutting the private law that is presumed by the court to hold primary standing in the matter, you will lose your bid to use the affidavit to defeat the issue. The court will not recognize your affidavit.  

You ask, how can this be? Doesn’t an unrebutted affidavit, when the other side fails to respond to it with a competing affidavit, stand as truth in commerce? Good question! When asserted outside of public policy and under public law, yes it is. But what we who have done this in their courts and failed have been missing is the understanding that in a modern commercial court that first takes notice of and honors standing treaties with other nation-states, we must rebut the presumptions that the court imposes before our lawful processs can be recognized. These commercial courts turn the Merchant law maxim around and states that “an unrebutted presumption stands as Truth in commerce.” In other words, the court’s presumptions, when unrebutted, nullified the affidavit and placed us on the private side of the matter all the while the court pretends to be a public law court. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve been put on the defensive we don’t know how, and have pretty much lost any chance we might have had of prevailing.

Very simply, there are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the Private Bar Guilds, which, if left unchallenged, stand as Truth in commerce. If we fail to rebut each of these presumptions, one by one, meaning if even one presumption still stands unrebutted, the court will proceed as though none of the presumptions were rebutted. According to some sources for this information, a document rebutting each of the twelve presumptions may be entered in court prior to the date of hearing in order to shut the proceedings down. According to this source, it is highly unlikely that a court would care to attempt to proceed once the twelve presumptions of its court have been nullified on the record of the matter.

(Disclaimer: I do not claim any experience with using this approach. However, according to what I know from personal research and direct knowledge of how frustrating these courts can be, this is one of the few approaches that I would not hesitate to use if pushed because it makes sense according to everything I’ve studied about these courts and their use of secrecy in order to entrap their victims. In other words, you call them on their game, and they have no comeback! Because you’ve just destroyed the premise upon which they operate.)
 
The presumptions themselves, while relatively straightforward, take a bit of time to explain and go through. Therefore, a separate article titled “The Twelve Presumptions Of Court” will be linked to for that explanation. This article will include information detailing how to rebut these presumptions. So it will be well worth the reader’s time to explore these explanations in more depth. In the meantime, a list of the twelve presumptions follows below:  

1. The Presumption of Public Record

2. The Presumption of Public Service

3. The Presumption of Public Oath

4. The Presumption of Immunity

5. The Presumption of Summons

6. The Presumption of Custody

7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians

8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees

9. The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary

10, The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort

11. The Presumption of Incompetence

12. The Presumption of Guilt

Once you read the explanation for each of these presumptions of court, and if you are at all familiar with the information that generated them over and above what I have just explained about the connections of the Vatican to our legal system in the discussion above, this will all begin to make sense.

It also helps to realize that attorneys and members of the Bar Guild who serve in these courts are bound by not one, but two oaths, which only makes sense. Otherwise they would not be able to do what they do in terms of treating people like “things.” One oath is to the corporate state as a public servant in order to maintain the impression that access to the Law of the Land still exists, which it does. Yet without that oath, there would be grounds for fraud, and the charge of impersonation of a public officer! Also it helps maintain the impression of impartiality in the public’s eyes just in case someone happens to figure out their game and they have to dismiss a case. It’s all about the optics!

The other oath is taken subject to their allegiance to the Bar Guild itself, which is their primary loyalty and the first form of law that they will assert in any legal matter because it represents their meal ticket. Just the thought that these denizens of inequity are aware of the “legalized crime” that they commit on a daily basis ought to be enough to get your blood boiling. Making something legal doesn’t excuse the moral and ethical elements of the deception and chicanery involved in luring someone into these traps. Much less than such behavior should be allowed to be carried on unpunished. Foreknowledge of the ambiguity of the situation ought to prove intent to commit the crime. They know that what they are doing is morally and ethically wrong and goes against everything they supposedly stand for as an advocate of the law, yet they go ahead and do it because, at least for the present, they can get away with it.

Footnotes:
1  Our Enemy, The State by Albert Jay Nock, (Caldwell, Idaho.: Caxton Printers, 1950), p. 171, n. 16.

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See
 
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.

_________________

If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.