Finding Relief from the Legal Pirates – How and Why the once “almighty” Private Bar Guilds are losing their grip over the kidnapping of Justice

On any given “business” day, in any given “public” courts around the world, dozens of men and women face the kind of “summary justice” as first defined by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42 (1848). This is not the kind of “justice” as displayed on TV soaps, which grants defendants the luxury of sometimes half an hour (excluding commercial breaks) in which to plead their case, but the reality of hearings and judgments sometimes lasting no more than three to five minutes.

The reasons for such people being in court are wide and varied such as unpaid fines or debts, drunk driving, drug offences and financial difficulties. However, the overwhelming numbers of defendants present are there for non violent and often “victimless” crimes. 

Yet is it justice that some courts are processing more than ninety cases in a day? Is it fair that men and women are being fleeced of huge sums of money by the courts without the apparent fair opportunity to be heard? Is there any real relief from such obvious acts of legal piracy? And if so, how does one go about it? and what are the risks?

At the same time, is it morally right that someone who was caught allegedly “drunk” behind the wheel of a car should have their case dismissed on some technical maneuvre?  Or worse still, some alleged child molester? Or alleged violent rapist? This is the other side to exposing the weakness of the “pirate band” known as the Private Bar Guilds. It is also one of the loudest cries the Private Bar Guilds use in attacking any exposure of procedural injustice – to claim that such actions threaten the safety of society and the Rule of Law itself.

There is yet another dilemma that has been presented against discussing potential genuine “relief” against alleged corruption and procedural injustice within the present court system –not from members of the Private Bar Guilds or the Banker-Merchant classes, but from some self proclaimed “gurus” of the “freeman” and “truth” movement. In an extraordinary admission, the present author has received several emails warning against “education” of people for fear it will harm what these self proclaimed “gurus” claim is “real remedy” – from which a few “gurus” earn a living by charging fees.

Putting to one side for the moment the dilemmas faced with any kind of exposure of potential relief against legal piracy, the truth is that many hundreds of thousands of men and women are being denied procedural justice in the hearing of their matters and in the due process afforded to them through a “high-speed semi-automated summary justice system” that now appears to be the modern “public” court system.

This is the purpose of this article – to provide some practical and real answers to what kind of potential relief exists against such justice – not simply hunches, or theories – but clear and foundational relief that distinguishes either a system still functioning on the thread of Rule of Law vs. a system openly, publicly declaring itself to be devoid of all law and justice.

Before we start

Before we start, there are several key points to outline and remind readers namely, assumed pre-reading, the uncertain nature of relief and the fundamental importance of competence:

Firstly, on the point of assumed pre-reading, it is presumed that you have at least read carefully the past two articles being “The Paradox of Person” (17-Oct-2012) and “The Myths of Common Law..” (10-Oct-2012) before reading this article.  If you have not done so, then you are urged to read these articles first.

If possible, it would also be good if you have had the opportunity to peruse and read some of the material located on the various Ucadia websites, especially One-Heaven.Org and the canons of law such as Divine Law, Natural Law, Cognitive Law, Ecclesiastical Law, Positive Law and Sovereign Law.  This will then give you a good grounding as to the context of the points to be raised in this article.

Secondly, on the point of potential relief and its uncertainty,  what is outlined in this article must be predicated on the fact that “one size does not fit all” and that when one faces openly corrupt and treasonous officials, just being legally and lawfully correct does not automatically mean success.

There is a partial truth in the words of those who warned against "educating" people of the truth in that there is always the risk of misuse and certainly of the establishment from becoming aware.  Then again, as in the famous quote attributed both to Edumund Burke and Sergei Bondarchuk “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

Thirdly, it must be stated categorically and unequivocally that there can be no remedy or relief in law, without competence.  While there has existed for centuries certain relief for one who is diagnosed as a lunatic and mentally insane through Furiosus nullum negotium contrabere potest meaning “A madman can contract nothing” ; and Furiosus solo furore puuitur meaning “A madman is punished by his madness alone”, there remains the maxim Furiosus absentia loco est meaning “a madman is the same with an absent person”.

In other words, one who demonstrates willful incompetence either condemns themselves or may be treated as wholly absent, which then suits perfectly the “high-speed semi-automated summary justice system” that now appears to be the modern “public” court system. Please consider carefully, everything that is written and read, study and ask questions. Above all, do not sacrifice competence for haste- particularly when your freedom, your financial future and the future and security of your family may also be at stake.

Let us begin then with what is meant by “pirate”, “privateer”, “private” and “public”?


Pirates, Privateers, Private and Public

[1] Not every lawyer, clerk, sheriff, bailiff, judge or magistrate is a pirate.  Similarly, not every banker or merchant is an energy parasite intent on sucking your life savings out of you. But the words “pirate”, “private”, “public” and “privateer” have specific meanings and a long history in statute.  So when such terms as “pirate” is applied to the Private Bar Guilds around the world, it is used not as an ad hominem (logical fallacy) but as a forensic taxonomy class of species of entity; and

[2] The words “private” and “public” is similar to “person” in that it is claimed to be much older (6th Century CE and older) yet its appearance is no earlier than the 16th Century – the first being the folio of Shakespearian Plays and secondly the production of a suspect work known as Corpus Iuris Civilis in 1583 by Jesuit trained and educated Denis Godefroy; and

[3] Contrary to a swathe of sometime absurd and contradictory works, the pagan Roman jurists did not use the words “private” or “public”, nor promulgate laws according to such a duality.  Instead, prior to rise of the Holly Roman Empire under Constantine in the 4th Century CE and the complete destruction of Rome in the 5th Century CE (410 CE and 455 CE) the Romans divided their law into three (3) forms being Rex (Sacred and Patrician), Lex (Administrative and Plebian) and Lor/Lore (Foreign, Customary); and

[4] Rex, also known as “Rex Sacrorum” also known as “Sacred Rites”, also known as “Sacred Law” was a form of law developed by the Yahudi founders of Rome from the 6th Century BCE onwards exclusively for the benefit and protection of the most elite families of all known as Patricians; and

[5] Lex, also known as “Legis” was a form of law developed over centuries exclusively for the benefit and protection of the highest classes of citizens in Roman society known as “civilis” incorporating Patricians and Plebians. In turn, Lex was divided into four main bodies being (1) Ius Civile being the Rights of Civilis (Roman word for Citizens) being Patricians and Plebians; and (2) Ius Gentium being the Rights of the “Peoples” incorporating the lowest form of “citizens” being Municeps; and (3) Ius Forum being the laws of public places and administration and (4) Ius Domus being the laws of the household; and

[6] Lor, (pronounced “law”), also known as “Lore” was the customary or equivalent to unwritten “common folklore” of the Roman system in favor of “citizens” against various conquered people, such as usufruct (first fruits) and many other rights asserted in favor of Rome; and

[7] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) (pg 964) defines “public” to mean “pertaining to a state, nation or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use”; and

[8] The word “public” is supposed to be derived from the Latin word publicus, which is both circular in meaning “publicus means public” and self serving “of or belonging to the people, state or community”.  However, the Latin roots of pube(s) (age of majority, young adult) and liceo (to be for sale, to have a price/value) indicate the 16th Century CE word public to have an original etymology more akin to “community commerce”; and

[9] Dictionarium Britannicum (1736) defines “private” to mean “retired, concealed (secret)” from the Latin privatus which (unsurprisingly) also possesses a circular definition meaning “privatus means private”. However, the true etymology of this 16th Century word is a little easier to decipher with privo meaning “to deprive, rob, steal, take away” and –atus being a Latin suffix equivalent to –ed in English meaning privatus properly means literally “deprivation, robbing, stealing, seizure”; and

[10] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) pg 941 defines a Privateer then as “a vessel owned, equipped, and armed by one or more private individuals, and duly commissioned by a belligerent power to go on cruises and make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce”; and

[11] The earliest reference to Privateer in Western-Roman Law “public statute” is in 1704 through 3 & 4 Ann. c.13 regarding “fraudulent captures” by privateers in the commercial war against France. It is then greatly expanded upon in 1707 with 6 Ann. c. 37 and the “encouragement of trade to America” which effectively opened all the colonies up to the business of “privateers” against enemies of Great Britain; and

[12] Blacks 2nd Edition (1910) pg 900 defines a Pirate then as “A pirate is one who acts solely on his own authority, without any commission or authority from a sovereign state, seizing by force and appropriating for himself without discrimination, every vessel he meets with”. Oddly, the earliest references to “public statues” against piracy are claimed to be much older than its associated concept of “privateers”, with the earliest claimed statutes being in 1536 and 27 Hen. 8. c.4. and then in 1537 with 28 Hen. 8. c.15; and

[13] From these definitions, we can clearly see that the words “public” and “private” have a vastly different meaning to their common use and essentially mean “general rules of commerce” being public, while “special secret permission to break the rules of commerce” is the essential meaning of “private”; and

[14] The primary difference therefore between a Privateer and a Pirate is possession of a valid commission.  The Privateer claims to have one – the Pirate does not.  The traditional name for that commission of the Privateer is the infamous “Letter of Marque”. Strangely yet again, we see a glaring inconsistency with the statute record whereby the first claimed statute referencing “Letter of Marque” is 4 Hen. 6. c.7 in 1416, yet never mentioned as the means of validating privateers in the most important act concerning such roles under 6 Ann. c. 37; and

[15] What is more likely is the first real statute on Letters of Marque was 24 G. 3. c.47 in 1784 having been copied from the successful system of the American Colonies during the wars and then later expanded more fully into a system applying to a whole range of “Privateers on land” under the 1801 act 41 G. 3. c.76 and then further in 1805 with 45 G.3. c.72. The right to act as “legal pirates” through the issue of Letters of Marque and “Reprisal” of course being famously enshrined in Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; and

[16] As to legislative remedy against Piracy, many of the laws of England and Great Britain against piracy remain in force and are unequivocal – the penalty for piracy is death.  Certainly, a man or woman found to be masquerading as a public official (de son tort) without a valid letter of marque would be open for potentially unlimited damages and the end of their career – even if the execution of the sentence against piracy is no longer fully enforced; and

[17] As to legislative remedy against Privateers, there exists a substantial body of law concerning the original concept of “truce” and “safe conduct” (also sometimes known as safe harbor) such as 29 H.6. c.2 and 14 E.4. c.4 stating that the breaking of a truce by an officer of the realm is an act of treason; and 18 H.6. c.8 granting ships even of enemies safe passage under letters of “safe conduct” enrolled in chancery; and

[18] Returning to the original premise of this article concerning “finding relief from legal Pirates” the questions then are: Are the courts operating in public or private? Are judges and magistrates properly invested public officials or merely privateers? If judges and magistrates do not possess proper letters of marque are they simply operating as independent contractors and effectively as pirates?  Finally, how may this help in terms of relief? Before we answer these questions, lets review some key insights from the previous article concerning the "Paradox of Person".


The absolute need for Legal Person for Jurisdiction 

[19] As stated clearly in the previous article “The Paradox of Person” all administrative law, all public statute law and all court rules and procedures depend and rest upon the presence of a legal person (also known as a statutory person or surrogate person) or the effect “control of the person. If the Person present for the matter of controversy is not a legal person, but a “superior form” of person that does not agree to surrender its authority to the court, then the court has a problem – as it has to serve the best interests of resolving the controversy concerning the person associated with the matter; and

[20] Names such as employee, citizen, taxpayer, driver, employer, recipient are some of the many hundreds of terms used within public statutes to describe “legal persons”. As modern Western-Roman courts operate within the first form of law (without recess or deliberate change of form) as administrative law courts, the application of personal jurisdiction of the court pertains to an alleged controversy associated with a public statute concerning a type of legal person and the presence of the legal person in question; and

[21] If however, the person who is present is not a legal person, but a Level 6 Higher Order Life form who has chosen to represent themselves in propria persona as a Natural Person then the court must effectively convince the natural person to surrender their position to the absolute authority of the court. This is most frequently done by a combination of force, trickery and intimidation through such corruptions as:

(i) forcing the Natural Person to stand “pro se” and therefore automatically agree to the personal jurisdiction; or

(ii) asking if the Natural Person is willing to “understand the charges against (the person)” therefore stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) demand the Natural Person take an oath “under the court” thereby creating a legal person and automatically surrendering their Natural Person; or

(iv) if all else fails, simply intimidate, trick, falsify and unsettle the Natural Person by ignoring due process until through inaction by the Natural Person against breach of due process they “surrender” to the power of the judge or magistrate; and

[22] If the person is a 2nd person, also known as an “artificial person” as in a classic agent-principal relation, then courts frequently obtain personal jurisdiction by:

(i) Demanding only members of the Private Bar Guild may be agents or attorneys and therefore by their oaths, automatically submitted to the absolute authority of the court; or

(ii) Demanding the agents have suitable insurance (bond) and swear an oath to “uphold due process” and by default to stand under the absolute authority of the court; or

(iii) Demanding the paperwork of agents are originals with wet ink signatures when submitted to the court clerk, therefore transferring original “title” of the agent-principal relation to the control of court; or

(iv) Removing the right, or mention or forms available for proper recording of an agent or power of attorney to represent the principal in court.

[23] In contrast to these tricks, Blacks 9th Edition Pg 72 defines an “agent” as “one who is authorized to act for or in place of another; a representative”.  Blacks goes onto say “generally speaking, anyone can be an agent who is in fact capable of performing the functions involved.  The agent normally binds not himself but his principal by the contract he makes”. Blacks even defines the etymology of “agent” as “from the Latin verb, ago, agere; the noun agens, agentis. The word agent denotes one who acts, a doer, force or power that accomplishes things.”; and

[24] Blacks 9th Pg 147 defines an attorney firstly as “one who is designated to transact business for another; a legal agent. – Also termed attorney-in-fact; private attorney”.  The definition of an attorney being “a person who practices law; lawyer” is a distinct and secondary definition to attorney; and

[25] Similarly, Blacks 9th Edition Pg 401 defines a “counsel” firstly as “advice or assistance” without any reference to a Counsel in the first definition having to be a Lawyer or member of the Bar, which is listed as the second and third separate definitions respectively; and

[26] The right to appoint an attorney is well established in English and Western-Roman Law with the Statute of Merton (1235), considered to be the first English statute, stating “Every freeman that oweth suit to the county, tithing, hundred, or wapentake, or to a court baron, may make an attorney to do those suits for him, 20 H.3. Stat. Merton c.10.  It was not until the reign of George II and 2 Geo.2. c.23 in 1729 that the role of Attorney and Solicitor was enclosed across the realm to a system of indenture with existing members of the Inns Court, also known as “The Temple” and “Temple Bar”; and

[27] The right to counsel of your own choosing is less well established than the ancient right of attorney which remains in force in all former British colonies. However, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution also expressly provides the right for all accused to have assistance of counsel, thus permanently enshrining it as a public right; and

[28] Yet these rights pale into relative insignificance when you consider the most powerful enshrined rights of all- international law that every one of the one hundred and ninety three nations on planet Earth who are full members of the United Nations are bound to follow by law being the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights (UDHR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948; and

[29] The adoption of Administrative Law and functions across many western countries from 1948 is in fact in deliberate response to this core treaty and universal body of law. In 1948, a historic meeting of justices and leading lawyers in the United States were essentially briefed on this fact – that the law from that point onwards would be dictated by such core treaties as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What then makes this document so important in light of person? It is because of several key articles and their implication; and

[30] Article 3 of the UDHR states categorically and unequivocally that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person”. In other words, once you have established your first person, or second person to the court, the court is legally obligated to follow UN Convention and ensure the proper security of your person, instead of its injury or attempted replacement with a surrogate; and

[31] Article 6 of the UDHR states clearly that “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. In other words, if you have established a proper first person or second person then the law is obliged to recognize you – instead of refusing recognition, pretending they cannot hear or denying you access, by claiming the courts to be a “closed shop” or “private enterprise” for “members only” and

[32] Article 10 states clearly that “everyone is entitled to full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”.  Therefore, enshrined in the laws of one hundred and ninety three countries is your fundamental right to have your matter heard in a “public forum” not in a “private court”; and

[33] Article 8 of the UDHR states clearly that “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”. Therefore the country you live in, that is recognized as a member of the United Nations is obliged to investigate and remedy acts of injustice, obstruction and judicial corruption; and

[34] Article 30 of the UDHR states that “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. Therefore, the Private Bar Guilds and those members actively undermining the laws of the United Nations which their predecessors helped draft as well as committing countless acts of treason against their own country of birth should be regarded effectively as “international terrorists” or at the very least candidates for cases of “crimes against humanity”; and 

[35] The fact is that when you competently assert your first person or second person position honorably, peacefully in seeking to resolve a matter in respect of the law, you or your agent is the proper judge or magistrate – not the de son tort “surrogate” sitting on the bench threatening to put you in prison, or demanding you be quiet. The time, therefore has come to restore the law and recognize how best to conduct ourselves in respect of the law and our community in resolving matters before the courts.  But first, let us look at another key point being the “Game of Chess” and how legal procedure is supposed to be conducted.


The Game of Chess, Due Process and Cheating by the Private Bar Guild

[36] The processes of court originate from the Game of Chess whereby as a principle rule, each side takes a turn to make a move until one side concedes, or there is a tie. Like the Game of Chess, the powers of different pieces or “officers of the court” determines what kinds of moves can be made, in what direction and how strong.  The strongest piece is not the king (principal), but the agent to the king being the queen; and

[37] Keeping in mind the over simplification and gross generalization of comparing the huge variety of courts and administrative tribunals to the Game of Chess, there are two basic types of administrative procedural moves - being a motion and an order – reflecting who possesses the power and who are there as lesser “pieces”; and

[38] When a court believes it has constructed a legal person, the independent contractor acting as a judge or magistrate will issue orders as the surrogate principal (de son tort) while all other parties as defacto agents of the court are bound to follow such orders.  In turn these agents submit their case as motions to the surrogate principal who then rules on their admission or rejection; and

[39] The problem when one has demonstrated their competent first person or second person is shifting their mind set to the need to issue directions or orders, while all the other pieces in the court are effectively agents to the superior person.  When many have attempted this, they have been met with a wide range of outright hostility, threat, intimidation and belligerence all in direct defiance of the law that should be honored by these members of the private Bar Guild; and

[40] For some, an alternate approach may be to enable the court to clarify its position before the need or risk of such a confrontation whereby an interrogatories is properly formed and annexed in response to any summons whereby the status of the person is established, and key questions are rightfully asked of the court to be duly established first, such as:

(i) Is the court acting as a public forum or a private meeting of a private business or association? If the court is private, who is responsible and under what authority did this responsible person nominate a matter of public interest relating to a public statute to be heard in a private court? And

(ii) Is the judge or magistrate to hear the matter a duly sworn public official or a privateer? If they are a duly sworn official, can a record of the lodgment of their oath be produced prior to proceeding. If they are a privateer, can a record of their warrant or letter of marque be produced and under what authority such letter was granted for this matter?

(iii) If the court is private and the court officers are privateers, what is the insurance, underwriting, bonds or guarantees to ensure that the court and its officials uphold the public law, any fiduciary obligations, act in good faith and swear to speak the whole truth?

(iv) Is there, or is there planned to be one or more bonds issued for this matter? By whom? Under what authority? For what amount? For whose benefit? And Why?

(v) As the matter is in relation to one or more specific statutes relating to one or more legal persons, please provide a summary of the evidence and brief as to what is considered proof and the courts claim of jurisdiction?

(vi) What is the exact form of law and procedure by which the court will conduct any and all hearings and resolution of the matter? Is this public procedure and practice or private? Where is a copy of these procedures listed? If private, by what authority is private procedure used to resolve a public matter?

[41] In no way are these questions listed in bad faith, nor may any competent or reasoned person argue that such questions imply vexatious behaviour.  On the contrary, a competent, honorable, peaceful litigant has every right to ask such questions before they enter a court room and indeed are obligated if they truly are a competent person to ask such questions; and

[42] Will members of the Private Bar Guilds answer such questions?  It is hard to tell, but based on the track record to date, it is highly unlikely. Which brings us to the next point- what to do when judges, magistrates, court officials and attorneys cheat and lie; and

[43] Unfortunately, when faced with competence- rather than seek to have matters resolved properly, many judges and magistrates as well as their court staff have chosen to demonstrate what can only be described as diabolical incompetence and perfidy to the law of their own country and to the United Nations; and

[44] In recent weeks, the author has witnessed first hand senior judges around the world engaging in extraordinary acts of fraud, criminality and open corruption with their staff complicit in such actions- fictitious documents and orders, falsifying the docket, stealing bonds, altering evidence, changing the record, hiding evidence and obstructing justice as a few examples; and

[45] The problem for many people when they come to court, say after lodging their principal- agent relation, lodging their interrogatories and asking for answers before a court is that once they arrive, the questions are ignored and the magistrate or judge immediately begins demanding compliance, or issuing threats.  In most cases, the response has been to cave in to such threat, torture and intimidation which is fundamentally in breach of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights. The only way to respond to such open corruption and incompetence is to have the courage to stand, declare the matter is halted pending an order to have the matter heard by a competent tribunal in a public forum which is the right of all persons of one hundred and ninety three members of the United Nations; and

[46] Unfortunately, when facing such open corruption this is unlikely to stop such incompetent and severely mentally ill people from creating more damage by falsifying the record, false orders, or even arbitrary arrest which is in direct violation to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human (Person) Rights.  But if you do nothing. If you sit down and accept it- then the corrupt judge or magistrate has won.  Because the Private Bar Guild has convinced their most ardent tyrants that if the litigant accepts the cheat- then the cheat is permitted.  That is why so many openly corrupt judges and officials continue to be destroying the lives of people – because no one has been willing to step away and stop bearing witness to such evil and injury against the law.

Accountability for one’s own actions

[47] Not every judge or magistrate is corrupt. Not every lawyer is there to destroy lives.  In fact the first people to whom the Private Bar Guilds lie are their own members. They deliberately recruit the best and the brightest, the idealists who want to make the world a better place and then destroy their hope, their lives- condemning them to a mind set where they believe there is no redemption; and

[48] If most judges, lawyers, magistrates, sheriffs and court officials were to step aside for a moment and realize that they are not condemned, that they have not lost their souls- that redemption exists in merely helping restore the law and ensuring justice prevails, then even some of the most apparent examples of corruption might be addressed and there be a final end to the madness; and

[49] Similarly, those who read these articles and consider their own positions need to think long and hard about the morality and accountability of their actions.  Within Ucadia, all Ucadia members are held to account for all controversies- that none may be simply dismissed out of technicality and all must be resolved.  For some, this requirement to be accountable for one’s own actions is too harsh and why they do not wish to be associated with Ucadia.  For others, especially judges, magistrates and existing lawyers – it is the offer of a fresh start and the end of the curses that membership to the Private Bar Guilds tricked most into believing; and

[50] Restoring the law, healing the law is about respect of the law – not injuring it.  So when some master propagandists, haters and agents of the status quo publish claims that Ucadia and the actions of many good people in the truth movement is somehow anti-law and anti-social, it the worst kind of moral treachery and vomit; and

[51] Therefore, to all who find themselves in court or interaction with the law, by choice or circumstance- be careful, think long and hard and please join a growing body of people who are supporting the desire to restore the law and end the madness of “justice for sale” and self destruction of our own world. Thank you.