The de facto Judicial System
"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not
because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway.
If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign
that it shouldn't be a law." [Anonymous]
In previous chapters we have examined the common law, and later, we found that
the rules and procedures regarding the common law were combined with the rules
and procedures of equity; "justified" under the guise of a "state
of emergency." To understand the full implications of this amalgamation,
we first must examine equity.
This distinction between what is and what
ought to be may serve as a rough guide to the difference between common law
and equity in the centuries after the fourteenth. Equity supplements the
common law; its rules do not contradict the common law; rather, they aim at
securing substantial justice when the strict rule of common law might work
hardship. [Origins of the Common Law by Hogue]
In England, equity was a necessary extension of the common law, because their
common law was based on the feudal law concerning freeholders. As the feudal
system died out and the people's sense of right and wrong matured, equity
(fairness) was introduced. We must understand that equity was introduced to
promote what is right and just. In England the Courts of Equity were an
attractive alternative to the common law. Unfortunately, it contains a
principle of law that wicked men have used as to pervert American Justice; viz,
the judge is not bound by supremacy of law.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity
Sect. II, U.S. Constitution]
I am not an expert on the Founding Fathers understanding of equity at the time
of the writing of the Constitution. However, my best guess is that they felt
equity was a valid court to be used in a manner that resembles our binding
arbitration of modern times. For whatever reason the parties to a suit might
feel more inclined to let a judge determine the matter than having a jury. For
instance, a small and insignificant matter could be quickly settled without the
whole town being needlessly involved. Suppose a young Johnny destroyed some of
Mr. Smith's propertly while helping himself to Mr. Smith's apples. Do we
really want to sit a jury to decide the matter? I don't think so, justice will
be well enough served to have the judge decide the case.
In American Equity the judge decides the matter, in American Common Law the
jury does. Obviously, the procedures in equity will be different than at law.
That is to say, the rules of common law are inappropriate for many functions of
the judicial system. The courts needed to be able to operate under two sets of
procedural rules. One where the prerogatives lay with the jury, and one where
the prerogatives lay with the magistrate. Magistrates would often prefer
equity because not only was it expedient, it was up to the magistrate to decide
what was right and what was wrong.
It is often said that equity had its origin in the "Divine right of King's."
This is true, because the King has a right to establish courts over his
subjects. However, it is a somewhat misleading statement, because in American
Law every free person is considered a sovereign in his own right. America is a
community of kings, so there are very few natural persons which could be
involuntary compelled to equity. The law is clear: A sovereign cannot be
forced into a court of equity against his own will.
Equity follows the law. [Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1856]
In equity, the magistrate authority has the prerogative to decide what is
right and just. The quality of what is right and just is directly related to
the integrity of the magistrate. Before the courts buried the common law, the
body sovereign had insignificant exposure or direct contact with the "in-equity"
side of the court.
The intent of the founders was to have a judicial system that would have the
procedures and powers necessary for it to carry out its delegated functions. It
is indisputable that the purpose of the "in-equity" side of the court
was to execute those objects necessary to keep secure the unalienable rights of
the People. Equity has its place, and that is subordinate to the common law.
Equity is good and needed, but the wicked have used it to bury the law.
In American Law, God-given rights to Man are supreme over any law
passed by the government instituted by the People. It is your
God- given right to life, liberty, and to the fruits of your own labor.
Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property -
this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders,
these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
This is a foremost principle of American Law
that no human legislation may
rightfully interfere with your Rights. Thus, laws founded in individual
rights are supreme over other types of law.
Well, we obviously have laws on the books that are not founded in the
preservation of individual rights. These other laws are founded upon public
policy. This is as it should be, however, those laws which are not
founded upon our fundamental law are subordinate to the same.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,
though having the form and name of a law, is in reality no law, but is wholly
void and ineffective for any purpose; since its unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment
In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as
if it had never been passed
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates
no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and
justifies no acts performed under it
A void act cannot be legally
consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to
supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs
counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it. [16 Am Jur 2d 177, late Am Jur 2d 256] [emphasis added]
To most of us, it is quite clear that the fundamental laws override everything
to the contrary. Let us then try to apply this to a real world example. For
instance, say you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. The fundamental law
says that you have a right of liberty as long as you don't encroach on someone
else's liberty. Obviously, the seat belt law is contrary to this, so we know
that the seat belt law is phony. Yet when we go to court, we are fined for not
wearing the seat belt. The issue is clear: If the court is not observing the
fundamental laws, then what laws are they observing, and how do they pull off
THEY PRETEND THAT WE HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO BE BEFORE THE JUDGE IN AN EQUITY PROCEEDING.
Once the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Emergency was a political
question not a question of law or procedure the Constitution was
wholly broken. On that day the courts, which were established to secure
God-given rights, began their journey to shut down the fundamental law. The
New Deal was to be built on the premise that our rights were at the mercy of
the martial law authority. There was no other way to effect the New Deal that
would even resemble law.
At this point, I must take a moment to explain to the reader that this was and
continues to be a delusion on the part of our government. What is being done
cannot be constructed as anything but treason; the body sovereign has been
removed from its rightful position of authority by men who would be God. I do
not support their fallacious rationalizations; rather I report and oppose this
Now when such acts are being committed, it is the wise despot who does so out of
the spotlight. Thus the courts didn't come out and declare: "Everyone
is now under martial law, we are henceforth proceeding by rules of equity. All
your supposed God-given rights have been surrendered to us your
government." Instead they began the process of intentionally
ignoring a sovereign right here and there. One of those rights is the right to
a trial by jury of peers from the locale where the crime was alleged to have
occured according to the rules of the common law. When the court combined the
rules of equity with the rules of at-law that right was denied. Our courts now
operate almost entirely under the rules of equity. Since the judge is sitting
in equity the prerogative to determine right and just is up to him. Since the
U.S. is under martial law, the court says that anything the government says
(public policy) is just and right.
The judges have wantonly abandoned their foremost function; viz, the
safeguarding of the People's unalienable rights. They have sought absolution
under the Supreme Court's ruling that the court has no authority to determine
the question as to whether or not there is an actual invasion or rebellion.
This is a blatant ruse for the courts to usurp powers for themselves. With the
burial of the common law under the "in-equity" side of the court, the
judges are left to determine what is right or wrong in all cases whatsoever.
* * *
I think its obvious that most legislators, judges, law enforcement officers,
etc. do not understand that the law has been turned upside down. They are just
as confused (if not worse) than you are. They have been so busy jumping
through hoops to get into their profession they've believed (hook, line, and
sinker) everything the real Aristocrats of this game have been teaching them.
Most of the folks in government (especially local government) are mere pawns,
and so they don't realize how and why the law has been twisted. The
Aristocrats know how and why the law has been twisted, some see it as the only
means to control the unruly peasants, and others see it as the means to their
own power and wealth.
These government agencies, as the teachings continue,
can only accomplish their missions by dictating to the people what they can and
what they cannot do. These commissions must, of necessity, have the authority
to issue directives with the force of law. Since these agencies are staffed
with highly trained government "experts," they are the only ones
qualified to judge and interpret their own administrative orders. And, since
government has been commissioned by the Constitution to provide for the General
Welfare, it is the duty of government and a primary function of law to regulate
and provide these services. [Ted Pedemonti]
Mr. Pedemonti correctly (in my opinion) shows the dangerous mentality of well-
meaning, all powerful bureaucrats. Also, that the Federal and State
Bureaucracies are self-appointed Aristocrats. I think it is clear that some of
them have genuine, well-intentioned socialistic beliefs, and they are simply
trying their best to help out us poor ignorant people (while taxing us by force
to pay for their salaries and programs, I might add).
This line of thought subscribes to the ideology that the Constitution endorses
the doctrine of public policy. However, this is completely false. To
promote the general welfare is known to mean that the powers delegated to
government are designed to promote the well-being of each citizen; or rather,
the law shall harm no man who visits no evil upon his fellows. It is
outright fraud or ignorance to misconstruct this clause to mean that the
government may do as it pleases, as long as the elected believe what they do is
in the best interest of the Nation (public policy).
To believe this construction is to give a green light to Socialism; it is to
believe that the government is not limited in any way.
"It is not true, that there must reside in all governments an absolute,
uncontrollable, irresistible, and despotic power; nor is such power in any
manner essential to sovereignty. Uncontrollable power exists in no government
on earth. The sternest despotisms in any region and in every age of the world,
are and have been under perpetual control. Unlimited power belongs not to man;
and rotten will be the foundation of every government, leaning upon such a
maxim for its support. Least of all can it be predicated of a government,
professing to be founded upon an original compact. The pretence of an
absolute, irresistible, despotic power, existing in every government somewhere,
is incompatible with the first principles of natural right." [John Quincy
Adams, Sixth President of the United States]
We hear many people claiming that they have a right
to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rent controls, price controls,
welfare payments, guaranteed minimum wage laws, free public education, free
school lunch programs, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. They demand that the government
must pass "laws" to protect their "rights" to these things.
Since government itself produces nothing, the only questions that needs to be
answered is: Who can be required by (force) law to supply these things? You?
Me? Your next door neighbor? Does anyone have the right to force you or me to
reduce our rents, lower our prices, pay someone more than he is worth or that we
can afford to pay, render our services without compensation? This is Socialism
which is that " ... way which seemeth right to a man, but is the way of
death." [Ted Pedemonti] [emphasis added]
It only seems right that we take care of the homeless. Yet is it right to force
a man at gunpoint to pay his taxes for this social program? That may sound
absurd, but take just a moment to follow out the natural course of our current
system. If you decide you're not going to pay taxes, don't you think the IRS
will come knocking at your door? If you still refuse to pay taxes, won't the
IRS get a court order to sell some of your property? If you refuse to let the
IRS take your property, won't they come back with guns?
We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to
charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar
of public money. [David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35]
I think the terror most people are concerned with is the IRS. [Malcolm Forbes,
when asked if he was afraid of terrorism]
This is the length to which our system will go to ensure their social programs
are "funded": Charity at gunpoint! But Mr. IRS Agent is not Robin
Hood; whereas Robin returned the money to the folks to whom it belonged, Mr.
IRS Agent gives the money to whom it does not belong. So while everyone will
agree that charity is a virtue, I must part company with those that insist on
charity at gunpoint. Socialism uses force to carry out its doctrine, liberty
uses morality to carry out its doctrine. I leave it to the reader to determine
his own course.
At any rate, the well-intentioned reasons above expose why so many folks and
officials were and are willing to have a legal system that has been turned
inside out and upside down. We have to understand that if everyone in
government and law enforcement thought they were doing something sinister, the
system would collapse. So one of the keystones upon which all else relies is
that the masses mean well.
* * *
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are
those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are
simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness.
Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others and no interference with
their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the
design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting.
It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that
is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one
ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for
his own happiness solely, and not from any malice towards others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and
recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual
right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the
control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and co-equal
rights of another man to the control of his own person and property. [Lysander
...the jurisdiction of the courts of law and of equity
have been amalgamated, and an entire system has been substituted,
administered more according to the principles and modes and forms of equity
than the principles and forms of the common law. [Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
Once you figure the system out, you can beat it at its own game. However, the
risk is great and the price for failure is high, but it would be irresponsible
not to point out that it can be defeated. However, this is the subject of
another part of this book. The important thing that I have hoped to accomplish
herein is to point out what is a real crime, and what
is a "violation" based on public policy.
If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. [James 2:8] [emphasis added]
The most insidious aspect of our whole legal system is that a violation of
public policy is made to look like an actual crime. The malodorous decay of
the judicial system centers around the proceedings of equity. This is more
vile than a Chinese tribunal where you know going in that there is no pretense
or disguise that you have unalienable rights, for we now know that in equity
proceedings, the magistrate holds the prerogative to determine what is right
and wrong. In equity, the court can and does make outlandish presumptions.
To those of us who have been in the courts on constitutional issues, it is
obvious that the courts do not consider themselves bound by the Constitution.
They have very little or no respect for the laws that secure our rights. When
those to whom we have entrusted the administration of "our" laws have
no respect for it, and, as a matter of daily routine, overrule it in favor of
upholding public policy; just how honorable and trustworthy are they? When
lawyers, judges and politicians place themselves "above the law,"
they place themselves "outside the law" and they become "outlaws"
(criminals) - the very ones they have been commissioned to protect us against.
The question becomes, "Who is to protect us from our protectors?"
That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member
of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His
own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot
rightly be compelled to do or forbear because it will make him happier, because,
in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good
reasons for remonstrating with him, or entreating him, but not for compelling
him, or visiting him with any evil in case he does otherwise... [John Stuart
Mill, Knowing and Willing Consent]
The law, we have learned, has really not been changed. What has been changed is
the venue and procedures that the justice system operates by. Our justice
system follows the rules of equity, rather than the rules of law. In truth,
this has turned the justice system into a forum which is totally inappropriate
for the majority of American cases. Despite the fact that no bona fide state
of emergency exists the court always presumes that there is one. As it is now,
it is not easy for the general public to unravel what has happened. Thus, they
cling to rights that have no meaning in the equity side of the court. For most
of them at this time it is too late, and the judge will trample right over
their rights. The time to solve the justice problem is BEFORE you are ever
charged with a violation of public policy. Everyone knows the justice system
is fouled up, but how many of us are willing to do something about it?
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual,
it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master.
The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that
they are helpless and ineffectual. [Frank Herbert]
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet
depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
They want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the
awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a
physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it be a struggle. Power
concedes nothing without a demand... It never did... and it never will...
Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will
continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The
limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
[Frederick Douglas (1857)]
This is a matter addressed later on, but it is important to point out here that
the last and ultimate blame resides in the People. We will travel half way
around the world to fight for countries that we couldn't even pronounce the
week before, but we will not fight for our own nation. The land bleeds and the
People have lost their way. We idly watch as the soul of the Nation dies. Woe
unto us, for the last several generations we as a people have proven ourselves
to be unworthy.
As we continue through this work it will be important to remember:
- At-law and in-equity proceedings were properly instituted to address
different sorts of actions before the courts.
- The proceedings were unlawfully combined so as to usurp our authority over
- Under the in-equity proceedings God-given rights and constitutional
prohibitions are recognized at the pleasure of the court.
- The "success" of this shameful system is reliant upon the
good intentions of the masses, under the guise of public policy (socialism).
- If you understand this system it can be beat, however the risk is great.
One mistake and your property is at forfeit; or you'll end up incarcerated.
- Finally, we have ourselves to blame. The courts are here amongst us, they
are ours to control, but in this we have failed, and so the tyranny continues.