What Is Public Law and Private
Law, Part Two
And
Why You Need To Know The Difference
From
the previous article, we have learned that the development of public
law in the Union of states in America grew out of an adherence to the
constitutional republic set up under the Constitution for the United
States of America, which itself was based on the common law. That was
the basis of law and how the government was run at its inception in
1781 (under the Articles of Confederation, which later combined with
the Constitution) for the next eighty years up until about April of
1861
when by that time eleven southern states lawfully seceded from the
union. From that watershed moment on, not only did the manner of law
begin to change, but also the political system which ran the day-to-day
business of government began undergoing a radical
transformation.
Serious students of the historical machinations behind these changes
will find a great many interesting facts never taught them in school
in a three-part treatise by The Informer entitled
The
United States Is
Still A British Colony which talks about the hidden history
behind the
American Revolution and the so-called “Civil War,”
and in a couple of scholarly essays on Lew Rockwell’s site
titled “
Was
the Union Army’s Invasion of the
Confederate States a Lawful Act? An Analysis of President
Lincoln’s Legal Arguments Against Secession”
by
James Ostrowski, and “
A
Jeffersonian View of the Civil
War” by Donald W. Miller, Jr. If read with an open
mind, you
will find the facts stated in these pieces to be historically
verifiable.
Getting back to an examination of the history of law, under the
Constitution, the republic of the continental united States provided
for legal cases in three separate categories (i.e. three types of
courts): (1) at Law, (2) in Equity, and (3) in Admiralty or
Maritime.
In the first of these categories, law is the collective organization of
the individual right to lawful defense, generally considered under the
common law. In this context, law is viewed as being the judicial will
of the majority within an organization or society providing for the
natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common
force for individual forces, using law and the court to do only what
the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect
persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain the right of each,
in order that justice may be had by all.
Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person,
liberty, or property of another, then the common force — law
and the court — for the same reason cannot lawfully be used
to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
In other words, actual law (which goes unwritten) allows a person to do
anything they want as long as
they do not infringe upon the life, liberty, or property of anyone
else. Also, within the context of the common law, law does not compel
performance; something to keep in mind as we compare the types of law
which can come into play in a legal action.
The maxims of law, such as those proposed by John Bouvier in his 1856
Law Dictionary,
simply reflect the common sense reasoning of the common
law while also forming the basis for all so-called written
“law” (or rather rules, regulations, ordinances,
codes, and statutes). It is interesting to note that
today’s “laws” (ordinances, statutes,
acts, regulations, orders, precepts, etcetera) are often erroneously
perceived as law. But just because something is call a
“law” does not necessarily make it a law.
There is a difference between what can be deemed
“legal” between artificial persons and what is
perceived as being “lawful” among natural men and
women.
In other words, while the artifice of government may deem an action
“legal,” this does not necessarily mean that it was
“lawful,” ethical, and moral. And herein
lies an important difference in how government views its rules for
operation as opposed to how people may view these same rules as an
abuse of natural law.
The second of the categories, equity, is the jurisdiction of compelled
performance (for any contract a person is a party to) based on what is
fair in a particular situation. The term “equity”
denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing
during the course of regulating commercial intercourse between parties.
A party has no rights other than what is specified in the contract.
Additionally, equity carries with it no criminal aspects.
The third and final category, admiralty or maritime, involves compelled
performance
with the added element of a criminal penalty — a civil
contract with a criminal penalty.
When, in 1913, at the urging and heavy lobbying of the international
banking community the federal government handed over currency creation
to the Federal Reserve System (a private corporation), things began to
change in terms of the legal implications of the institution being
created in partnership with the federal government. All of a sudden,
anyone endorsing the handling of the new currency (Federal Reserve
notes as opposed to United States Notes, the latter being lawful money
which by tradition was
backed by substance, i.e., gold and silver) in any capacity at all came
under admiralty law. The problem for the government to resolve was in
how it was going to make a smooth transition to be able to deal with an
issue that involved an admiralty jurisdiction on land without having to
explain how this was at all possible by having to explain the admiralty
connection of Federal Reserve notes. In other words, the endorsed use
of these notes on land brought the admiralty jurisdiction onto the land
of the common people, although the people were never informed of such
(meaning it was not commonly known).
By 1938 a new system of law was being put in place to replace the old
and familiar common law upon which our country was founded. This new
system of law involved the gradual procedural merger between law and
equity actions (that is, one court, rather than three separate courts,
had jurisdiction over legal, equitable, and admiralty matters). In
1933, at the height of the Great Depression, the federal government was
bankrupt. In order to deal with its creditors (in equity), Congress
pledged all the government’s assets (all the land, housing,
government buildings, the States and their legislatures and executives,
the Congress, the courts, the Chief Exectutive, and the
future labor — gross national product — of the
people) in mortgage to the international bankers to stave off
foreclosure and default on the national debt.
These events forced a change in the country’s system of law
from public law to private commercial law, which was first recognized
by the U. S. Supreme Court in the
Erie
Railroad v. Thompkins case of
1938, which, among other things, stated that there was no
longer “general federal common law.” This case
marked the precedent wherein the procedures of Law were officially
blended with the procedures of Equity. Prior to 1938, all Supreme Court
decisions were based upon public law — or that system of law
that was controlled by Constitutional limitation. Since 1938, all U. S.
Supreme Court decisions have been based upon what is termed
“public policy,” meaning according to equity
wherein a party has no rights other than what is specified in the
contract in question as well as compelled performance. And what
contract might that be? The acquiescence to using a private currency
(Federal Reserve notes) in the normal course of transacting business
without conditional endorsement.
Public policy concerns commercial transactions made under the
Negotiable Instrument’s law, which is a branch of the
international law merchant. The legislation forseeing these changes can
be traced back to House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) approved in June
of 1933 which states that it is against public policy for anyone to
insist upon payment of a debt with substance or lawful money (i.e. gold
and/or silver, or a currency backed by these precious metals).
What HJR 192 effectively accomplished was a shift away from the
standard substance of the law, and law follows the standard substance
of money which according to the Constitution is gold and silver. When
Congress, acting under public policy, suspended the standard gold
substance in “payment” of debt, this affected the
way law dealt with certain matters. This meant that, similar to
corporations, HJR 192 offered individual Americans an artificial
connection (or franchise) to and relationship with the federal
government
outside
the literal common law of the constitution. This
shift occurred because everyone was given a quasi corporate privilege
under HJR 192 of
not
paying their debts with substance, even though it
is demanded under the common law of each state in the Union according
to Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.
In essence this means that the court now presumes by implication in the
civil law — otherwise known as “operation of
law”
— that a charter (franchise) exists between parties, because
people are voluntarily availing themselves of the privileges pertaining
to HJR 192. Therefore these people come under a ‘
quasi in
rem’ jurisdiction of the civil law in order to
regulate and
control those who are outside the literal common law principles.
Remember that under equity, “equity compels
performance.”
The law views unincorporated associations (such as the franchise
relationship that individuals can have with government as mentioned
above) as a derogation (discrediting) of the substance of the common
law because it deviates from what is considered lawful payment by
instituting a debt/credit system in its place.
Now, is it clearer in your mind why it matters that you know the
difference between public law and private law? And why you want to stay
out of a private law court’s jurisdiction if you want a
remedy
for your traffic matter.
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!
You can lead
people to the truth, but you can’t make them
see it.