Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Do you know, if the court operates in Law or Equity? If Not, You Will Lose!

Expand Messages
  • fastmuscleman
    Do you know, if the court operates in Law or Equity? If Not, You Will Lose! In Law or Equity ? by Alfr Alfred ed Adask For the past two or three generations,
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Do you know, if the court operates in Law or Equity? If Not, You Will
      Lose!
      "In Law or Equity"?
      by Alfr Alfred ed Adask
      For the past two or three generations,
      state and federal judges have increasingly
      ruled against Americans who
      defend themselves with the principles,
      rights, and laws mandated by their state
      or national constitutions. Occasionally,
      trial court judges even issue a seemingly
      impossible declaration, "Don't bring
      that Constitution into my court!" Although
      the reasons are unclear, there is
      growing suspicion that our courts are
      somehow no longer bound to recognize,
      obey, or enforce the law – and Americans
      can no longer demand the "unalienable
      rights" formerly guaranteed
      by our constitutions.
      Some patriot researchers attribute
      governmental "lawlessness" to the fact
      that our currency (Federal Reserve
      Notes) is no longer lawful money (i.e.,
      it's not backed by gold or silver). Others
      blame the loss of law on the "national
      emergency" that's effectively suspended
      the Constitution since 1933
      [See "Rising Tides", this issues]. Others
      trace our loss of rights back to
      government's use of martial (military)
      law which was imposed on us "temporarily"
      during the Civil War (1861-
      1865) but allegedly continued to this
      day. While the explanations vary, there
      is widespread agreement that: 1) Americans
      no longer enjoy "constitutional
      Rights"; and 2) virtually all of today's
      courtroom "trials" are actually administrative
      hearings.
      In 1997 (in AntiShyster Vol. 7
      Nos. 1 & 4), I published my first speculation
      that government is using trusts
      (like Social Security, Medicare, and the
      National Highway Trust) as one of, perhaps
      the principle device to "legally" bypass
      the Constitution and thereby deprive
      us of our Rights. A year later, my "trust
      fever" burns even hotter, supported by a
      growing body of indirect evidence.
      Some of this evidence is seen in
      the similarity between our court's persistent
      use of seemingly unconstitutional
      procedures, and the lawful
      (though not precisely "constitutional")
      procedures routinely the practiced in
      courts of equity.
      Curiously, controversies involving
      trusts are 1) virtually always administered
      in courts of equity, not adjudicated
      in courts of law; 2) there are no
      "legal rights" in courts of equity; and
      3) under Article III, Section 2 of the
      Constitution ("The judicial Power shall
      extend to all Case, in Law and Equity .
      . . .), courts of equity are absolutely constitutional.
      In other words, if your case were
      "accidentally" tried in a court of equity
      rather than a court of law, you would
      experience the same frustration as "patriots"
      who see their constitutional
      rights ignored and their cases administered
      (under some mysterious procedure
      they can't quite understand) rather
      than adjudicated in law.
      If government has truly established
      legal procedures in which we
      are tried administratively without constitutional
      rights, and if government is
      using lawful courts of equity to implement
      this procedure – then perhaps government
      has not imposed some bizarre
      new system of law (martial, maritime
      or admiralty, etc.) upon us, but has instead
      imposed a new individual status
      upon us which makes us "appear" as
      "entities" that can be properly tried in
      equity rather than law. Maybe government
      changed us from real, fleshand-
      blood persons (who must be tried
      in law) to artificial entities (that must
      be tried in equity). If "trust fever" is
      valid, our failure to understand and recognize
      "equity" may be a fatal defect
      in our forays into the judicial system.
      Dad – what's an equity?
      Most of us have a dim idea of
      what "law" means, but few understand
      the meaning of "equity". However, before
      we can understand equity, we must
      first understand law, and to understand
      law, we must first understand Rights.
      The primary purpose of courts of
      law is to determine each litigant's legal
      rights; the primary purpose of courts of
      equity is to determine each litigant's equitable
      rights. Legal rights are based
      on legal (not equitable) title and ultimately
      believed to be clearly given by
      God, not man. Equitable rights, on the
      other hand, are imperfect, imprecise,
      vague and while sometimes traceable
      to God, they are more likely to be derived
      from man.
      It appears to me that if your rights
      are legal (based on legal, not equitable,
      title), you have "legal standing" and access
      to courts of law. However, if your
      "rights" are only equitable, you have
      no legal rights and therefore no standing
      in law or access to courts of law.
      If you don't understand the nature of

      your rights (legal or equitable) you
      won't understand whether you are being
      tried in courts of law or courts of
      equity. The distinction is crucial since
      courts of equity are not legally bound
      to recognize legal, constitutionally-protected,
      God-given rights. Therefore, if
      you argue legal rights or law in a court
      of equity, the judge may lawfully dismiss
      your arguments as "frivolous" and
      you will lose your case.
      Learning from history?
      What follows are several definitions
      from the 1856 edition of Bouvier's
      Law Dictionary which illustrate the relationship
      and differences between
      rights, law and equity. For emphasis,
      I've italicized or underlined various
      words and phrases. Footnotes and
      [bracketed] comments are my insertions:
      RIGHT. . . that quality in a person
      by which he can do certain actions,
      or possess certain things which belong
      to him by virtue of some title. . . .
      [Crucial point: Apparently, rights
      flow from – and depend on – title. Without
      title, you have no rights. With title,
      your rights will depend on the "quality"
      of that title: I.e., lessor title generates
      lessor rights; superior title generates
      superior rights. Equitable title generates
      equitable rights, but only legal
      title generates legal rights.]
      2. . . Right is the correlative of
      duty, for, wherever one has a right due
      to him, some other must owe him a duty.
      [I.e, if I have a right, someone else has
      a duty. But if I have no rights, no one
      else (not even government) has any correlative
      duties. This concept is vital to
      understanding Law.] . . .
      9. These latter rights are divided
      into absolute and relative. The absolute
      rights of mankind may be reduced to
      three principal . . . articles: the right of
      personal security, which consists in a
      person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment
      of his life, his limbs, his body, his
      health, and his reputation; the right of
      personal liberty, which consists in the
      power of locomotion, of changing situation,
      or removing one's person to
      whatsoever place one's inclination may
      direct, without any restraint, unless by
      due course of law; the right of property,
      which consists in the free use, enjoyment,
      and disposal of all his acquisitions,
      ["acquire" means to secure legal
      title to property; "purchase" means
      to secure equitable title.] without any
      control or diminution, save only by the
      laws of the land. . . .
      10. The relative rights are public
      or private: the first are those which subsist
      between the people and the government,
      as the right of protection on the
      part of the people, and the right of allegiance
      which is due by the people to
      the government; the second are the reciprocal
      rights of husband and wife,
      parent and child, guardian and ward,
      and master and servant.1
      11. Rights are also divided into
      legal and equitable. The former are
      those where the party has the legal title
      to a thing, and in that case, his remedy
      for an infringement of it, is by an action
      in a court of law. Although the person
      holding the legal title may have no
      actual interest, but hold only as trustee,
      the suit must be in his name, and not in
      general, in that of the cestui que trust [a
      trust's beneficiary] . . . . Equitable rights
      are those which may be enforced in a
      court of equity by the cestui que trust.2
      LAW. . . law denotes the rule . . .
      of human action or conduct. In the civil
      code of Louisiana . . . it is defined to be
      "a solemn expression of the legislative
      will."3 . . .
      2. Law is generally divided into
      four principle classes, namely; Natural
      law, the law of nations, public law, and
      private or civil law. When considered
      in relation to its origin, it is statute law
      or common law. When examined as to
      its different systems it is divided into
      civil law, common law, canon law.
      When applied to objects, it is civil,
      criminal, or penal. It is also divided into
      natural law and positive law4 . . . Into
      law merchant, martial law, municipal
      law, and foreign law5. . . .
      EQUITY. In the early history of
      the law, the sense affixed to this word
      was exceedingly vague and uncertain.
      . . It was then asserted that equity was
      bounded by no certain limits or rules,
      and that it was alone controlled by conscience6
      and natural justice. . . .
      3. . . The remedies for the redress
      of wrongs, and for the enforcement of
      rights, are distinguished into two
      classes, first, those which are administered
      in courts of common law; and,
      Gun Owners of America
      GOA defends firearms ownership as a freedom issue using its
      members to put the heat on their Congressmen.
      As the late Sen. Everett Dirksen used to say,
      "When I feel the heat, I see the light."
      Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has called GOA
      "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
      Want to keep your rights from being legislated away by
      Congress?
      secondly, those which are administered
      in courts of equity. Rights which are
      recognized and protected, and wrongs
      which are redressed by the former
      courts [of law], are called legal rights
      and legal injuries. Rights which are recognized
      and protected, and wrongs
      which are redressed by the latter [equity]
      courts only, are called equitable
      rights and equitable injuries. The
      former are said to be rights and wrongs
      at common law, and the remedies,
      therefore, are remedies at common law;
      the latter are said to be rights and
      wrongs in equity, and the remedies,
      therefore, are remedies in equity. Equity
      jurisprudence may, therefore, properly
      be said to be that portion of remedial
      justice which is exclusively administered
      by a court of equity, as
      contradistinguished from that remedial
      justice, which is exclusively administered
      by a court of law.7
      EQUITABLE ESTATE. An equitable
      estate is a right or interest in
      land, which, not having the properties
      of a legal estate, but being merely a right
      of which courts of equity will take notice,
      requires the aid of such court to
      make it available.8
      2. These estates consist of uses,
      trusts, and powers. . . .
      EQUITY, COURT OF. . . . one
      which administers justice, where there
      are no legal rights, . . . but [is used when]
      courts of law do not afford a complete,
      remedy, and where the complainant has
      also an equitable right. [see] Chancery.
      CHANCERY. The name of a
      court exercising jurisdiction at law, but
      mainly in equity.
      2. It is not easy to determine how
      courts of equity originally obtained the
      jurisdiction they now exercise.9 Their
      authority, and the extent of it, have been
      subjects of much question, but time has
      firmly established them . . . .
      3. . . . "American courts of equity
      are, in some instances, distinct from
      those of law; in others, the same tribunals
      exercise the jurisdiction both of
      courts of law and equity, though their
      forms of proceeding are different in
      their two capacities.10 The supreme
      court of the United States, and the circuit
      courts, are invested with general equity
      powers, and act either as courts of
      law or equity, according to the form of
      the process and the subject of adjudication.
      . . . In most of the states, the
      two jurisdictions centre in the same judicial
      officers, as in the courts of the
      United States; [In other words, both
      state and federal judges can hear cases
      in both law and equity.] . . . .
      4. The jurisdiction of a court of
      equity differs essentially from that of a
      court of law. The remedies for wrongs,
      or for the enforcement of rights, may
      be distinguished into two classes those
      which are administered in courts of law,
      and those which are administered in
      courts of equity. . . .
      In . . . America, courts of common
      law proceed by certain prescribed
      forms, [not precisely true since 1982]
      and give a general judgment for or
      against the defendant. They entertain jurisdiction
      only in certain actions, and
      give remedies according to the particular
      exigency of such actions. But there
      are many cases in which a simple judgment
      for either party, without qualifications
      and conditions, and particular
      arrangements, will not do entire justice
      . . . to either party. Some modification
      of the rights of both parties is required;
      some restraints on one side or the other;
      and some peculiar adjustments, either
      present or future, temporary or perpetual.
      In all these cases, courts of common
      law have no methods of proceeding,
      which can accomplish such objects.
      Their forms of actions and judgment are

      edy cannot be found, or cannot be administered
      to the full extent of the relative
      rights of all parties. . . . In such
      cases, where the courts of common law
      cannot grant the proper remedy or relief,
      the law . . . of the United States . .
      . authorizes an application to the courts
      of equity or chancery, which are not
      confined or limited in their modes of
      relief by such narrow [legal] regulations,
      but which grant relief to all parties,
      in cases where they have rights . . .
      and modify and fashion that relief according
      to circumstances11. . . .
      The jurisdiction of a court of equity
      is sometimes concurrent with that
      of courts of law and sometimes exclusive.
      It exercises concurrent jurisdiction12
      in cases where the rights are purely
      of a legal nature, but [exercises exclusive
      jurisdiction] where other and more
      efficient aid is required than a court of
      law can afford to meet the difficulties of
      the case, and ensure full redress.
      . . . The remedy [in equity] is often
      more complete and effectual than it
      can be at law. . . . [E]specially in some
      cases of fraud, mistake and accident,13
      courts of law cannot and do not afford
      any redress; in others they do, but not
      always in so perfect a manner. A court
      of equity . . . . will remove legal impediments
      to the fair decision of a question
      depending at law.14 It will prevent
      a party from improperly setting up, at a
      trial, some title or claim, which [might
      be legal, but] would be inequitable. It
      will compel [the party] to discover, on
      his own oath, facts which he knows are
      material to the rights of the other party,
      but which a court of law cannot compel
      the party to discover.15 It will perpetuate
      [record] the testimony of witnesses
      to rights and titles, which are in
      danger of being lost, before the matter
      can be tried [at law].16
      It will counteract and control, or
      set aside fraudulent judgments. It will
      provide for the safety of property in dispute
      pending litigation.17
      It will exercise . . . an exclusive
      jurisdiction . . . in all cases of merely
      equitable rights, that is, such rights as
      are not recognized in courts of law. [I.e.,
      if you lack legal title to the subject of
      litigation, your case must be heard in
      equity; i.e., you have no access to law.]
      Most cases of trust and confidence fall
      under this head.18 Its exclusive jurisdiction
      is also extensively exercised in
      granting special relief beyond the reach
      of the common law. . . . it will restrain
      any undue exercise of a legal right,
      against conscience and equity [Courts
      of equity can "legally" overrule legal
      rights, but probably only on a case-bycase
      basis. I.e., an equity judge is "legally"
      empowered to ignore the litigants'
      legal rights and the law.]; . . . it
      will, in many cases, supply the imperfect
      execution of instruments, and reform
      and alter them according to the
      real intention of the parties;19 . . . and,
      in all cases in which its interference is
      asked, its general rule is, that he who
      asks equity must do equity. If a party,
      therefore, should ask to have a bond for
      a usurious debt given up, equity could
      not decree it, unless he could bring into
      court the money honestly due without
      usury.
      . . . [I]n matters within its exclusive
      jurisdiction, where substantial justice
      entitles the party to relief, but the
      positive law is silent, it is impossible to
      define the boundaries of [equitable]
      jurisdiction, or to enumerate, with precision,
      its various principles."
      Unbridled power
      If Bouvier is correct and equity
      has no "defined boundaries" or limited
      "enumeration of its various principles,"
      there is truly no "law" in a court of equity.
      In a sense, a court of equity is absolutely
      contrary to the constitutional
      mandate for a limited government. The
      judge (or other government official acting
      as a trustee) can do virtually anything
      he deems proper that is consistent
      with "public policy" so long as his
      actions can be justified as "reasonable"
      or at least not "shocking to the conscience".
      This is consistent with allegations
      that courts (of equity) now "legislate
      from the bench" to create "judgemade
      law" by exercising the unbridled
      power that the Constitution was intended
      to prevent.
      I suspect that the fundamental
      flaw in our Constitution may be the legitimization
      of courts of equity where
      litigants had no rights and judges have
      no law. This may be the fundamental
      constitutional "crack" that allowed the
      entrance of big, non-constitutional government,
      bureaucracies et. al.
      Ha. Ha. Ha. It is to laugh.
      At first, it sounds kinda nuts, but
      "by law," courts of equity can't recognize "law". That is, according
      to
      Bouvier's definitions, courts of equity
      can't normally recognize legal arguments
      or determine legal issues. As a
      result, if you try to defend yourself in a
      court of equity with legal arguments
      based on positive law and constitutionally-
      protected Rights, you'd probably
      lose since the judge can't "legally" recognize
      legal arguments. You'd be as
      absurd as a man arguing baseball rules
      at a football game, and the judge would
      properly dismiss your arguments as
      "frivolous".
      But stranger still, even though
      you used "frivolous" legal arguments
      in a court of equity, if the judge merely
      liked you, or felt capricious, or particularly
      disliked your opponent, the judge
      could rule in your favor – for no discernible
      legal reason! As a result, one
      man could make a legal argument in a
      court of equity and win, while another
      man could make the same legal argument
      under identical circumstances,
      and not only lose but wind up in jail.
      Because the equity court judge has virtually
      unlimited discretion/ power, the
      "law" would become a complete
      crapshoot, where the only way to win
      would be to suck up to the judge, and
      the only thing a judge might fear would
      be public exposure. That's a fairly accurate
      description of today's judicial
      system. (This also signals that the
      "magic words" for court watchers' affidavits
      might be the judge's ruling
      "shocked my conscience" or was "unreasonable".)
      Further, the resultant confusion
      and misunderstanding might be enormous
      and even intentional. Suppose a
      particular "patriot" reached the erroneous
      conclusion that the traffic courts
      were acting under admiralty law. Suppose
      he defended against a speeding
      ticket with (erroneous) admiralty arguments,
      but the judge still knowingly
      ruled in his favor. Next thing you know,
      that patriot could be out on the seminar
      circuit, charging $100 a head to hear
      him explain how to beat traffic tickets
      with admiralty law. Then, hundreds of
      his students would start jamming the
      traffic courts with admiralty arguments,
      and virtually all of `em would be
      quickly wisked off to jail before the
      judge burst out giggling at their lunacy.
      In theory, I can even imagine a
      group of judges, sitting around a bar,
      holding their sides with gleeful laughter
      as they swapped stories of the last
      irrational decisions they made in court.
      "Admiralty?!" gasps one. "Hell, that's
      nothin' – I just ruled in favor of a kid
      who argued the cop was a space alien!
      You wait six months, and every fool
      patriot in the country will be arguing
      the cops are all `greys' from Jupiter!"
      OK, maybe the hypothetical
      judges didn't really meet to snicker over
      the latest irrationality they "seeded" into
      the patriots' "understanding" of law.
      But what about the lawyers? Wouldn't
      they also be frustrated and driven half
      nuts by the unbridled discretion of equity
      court judges and the resultant judicial
      caprice? How long would it take
      the average lawyer to realize that (for
      whatever reason), there's no point to
      studying or arguing law because law no
      longer works. If you want to win, you
      kiss the judge's butt, join the same
      country club, be a Mason, make huge
      financial contributions to the judge's
      political campaign fund (even if he has
      no opponent in the election), and in
      really important cases, bribe the old
      s.o.b. Does this sound a like a fairly
      accurate representation of current judicial
      reality? Yes.
      My point is that a judicial system
      that relied almost entirely on equity
      would soon deteriorate into a chaos
      reminiscent of Alice In Wonderland.
      Every time you turned around, there'd
      be some "Red Judge" hollering "Off
      with his head!" A judicial system that
      recognizes no legal rights or positive
      law is destined to degenerate into a raw
      power struggle, a kind of feeding frenzy
      between lawyers, litigants and judges.
      America cannot survive without
      legal rights, positive laws, and courts
      that recognize them.
      Lose your form,
      lose your substance
      One reason for the confusion between
      law and equity goes back to 1982
      when the federal courts in their infinite
      wisdom combined the procedural
      "forms" of law and equity into a single,
      uniform procedure. The usual explanation
      for unification of legal and equitable procedures was that
      it "simplified"
      the practice of law so attorneys
      and litigants would only have to learn
      one complex set of forms and procedures
      rather than two.
      Nice theory, but unified procedure
      creates at least one adverse consequence.
      Once law and equity procedures
      appear identical in form, litigants
      and lawyers could no longer automatically
      tell from the form of a court's
      documents and procedures whether
      their case was being tried in law or administered
      in equity. Attorneys compensated
      for this uncertainty by adding
      boilerplate to their pleadings to "pray
      the court" for all awards and remedies
      that might be due their clients "in both
      law and equity". That way, if the court
      was operating in law – fine, the client
      could win in law. If equity – the client
      could also win.
      But once it became difficult to
      distinguish between the procedural
      forms of law and equity, the need to
      distinguish between their substance was
      also diminished. Cases were won or
      lost, not on law, but on procedure.
      Again and again, the courts, law schools
      and lawyers chanted their mantra "procedure,
      procedure, procedures."
      If the judge said you won, hooray!
      If he said you lost, too bad, you
      could always appeal (and pay more
      money to your lawyer). But the judge
      was always viewed as solely responsible
      for his decision, and the lawyers
      were implicitly relieved from liability
      for failing to argue only law in a court
      of law, or only equity in a court of equity.
      The client, of course, never had a
      clue. Moreover, he seldom realized that
      his lawyers didn't have a clue, either,
      in this "brave new world" of unified
      procedure.
      However, there might be an even
      greater danger in "unifying" the procedures
      of law and equity: deception. To
      illustrate, suppose a trustee was in
      charge of two bank accounts; one for
      your senile grandmother and another
      for your aging grandfather. And suppose
      that while the trustee faithfully
      managed your grandfather's account, he
      systematically embezzled money from
      grandma's until she was virtually penniless.
      Suppose grandma and grandpa
      died, causing the trustee to provide a
      full accounting to the heirs for all the
      money he'd been administering in the
      two accounts. Since grandma's account
      was empty, an accounting would reveal
      the embezzlement. How could the
      trustee conceal the empty, embezzled
      account?
      What if the trustee told the heirs
      that, in order to "simplify" the procedural
      problems inherent in probating
      two bank accounts, he "combined" all
      the money from grandma's and
      grandpa's two bank accounts into a
      single "family" account? The heirs,
      assuming the trustee was helping them
      to easily inherit a single fat bank account,
      would approve. But, in fact, by
      combining the two bank accounts into
      one, the trustee could conceal the fact
      that Grandma's account was empty.
      Similarly, I suspect the real purpose
      behind "unifying" law and equity
      procedures may have been to conceal
      the fact that Americans no longer have
      easy access to law. Like Grandma's
      embezzled bank account, our law is
      now mostly missing. So long as the procedural
      forms of law and equity were
      different, if law "disappeared", its loss
      would be instantly obvious when someone
      tried to sue using the traditional
      procedure associated with law. The
      courts would reject the "legal" procedure,
      the litigant would ask Why? and
      the courts would have to admit he no
      longer had any legal rights or legal
      standing. That admission would be
      truly "politically incorrect".
      But by combining the procedural
      forms that previously distinguished law
      from equity, the judicial system could
      very nearly conceal the fact that law
      virtually disappeared. A person could
      sue using the new-and-improved "unified"
      procedural forms, and think he
      was operating in law – when he was in
      fact operating in equity. The courts
      could accept his procedure and then rule
      either for or against him (their discretion
      is nearly unbounded in equity) and,
      if he lost, never bother to explain that
      his "legal" arguments were truly "frivolous"
      since there is no law in a court of
      equity.
      Of course, this hypothesis sounds
      preposterous – and it may be. Nevertheless,
      until I find proof to the contrary,
      this equity-passing-as-law hypothesis
      "fits" with otherwise inexplicable but
      verified observations of judicial "lawlessness".
      Further, even if our law has
      not been "replaced" by equity, I still
      suspect that 90% or more of our current
      court cases are being administered
      in equity rather than adjudicated in law.
      If that's true, then we must understand
      equity so we can effectively present our
      cases in court.
      Arraigned in law – or equity?
      Here's another definition from
      Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856) that
      may help "signal" whether a "criminal"
      trial is taking place in equity rather than
      law.
      ARRAIGNED, crim. law practice.
      Signifies the calling of the defendant
      to the bar of the court, to answer
      the accusation contained in the indictment.
      It consists of three parts.
      1. Calling the defendant to the bar
      by his name, and commanding him to
      hold up his hand; this is done for the
      purpose of completely identifying the
      prisoner, as the person named in the
      indictment; the holding up his hand is
      not, however, indispensable, for if the
      prisoner should refuse to do so, he may
      be identified by any admission that he
      is the person intended. 1 Bl. Rep. 3.
      2. The reading of the indictment
      to enable him fully to understand, the
      charge to be produced against him; The
      mode in which it is read is, after saying,
      "A B, hold up your hand," to proceed,
      "you stand indicted by the name
      of A B, late of, &c., for that you on,
      &c." and then go through the whole of
      the indictment.
      3. After this is concluded, the
      clerk proceeds to the third part, by adding,
      "How say you, A B, are you guilty
      or not guilty?" Upon this, if the prisoner,
      confesses the charge, the confession
      is recorded, and nothing further is
      done till judgment. If, on the contrary,
      he answers "not guilty", that plea is
      entered for him, and the clerk or attorney
      general [prosecutor], replies that he
      is guilty; then an issue is formed. . . . .
      Vewwy intewesting
      The previous definition implies:
      1) Arraignments take place in
      criminal law – but it says nothing about
      "arraignments" in alternative legal arenas
      like equity. (Can you be truly "arraigned"
      in equity?)
      2) Your name is the first, crucial
      element to proceeding with the arraignment.
      Apparently, if you are not properly
      named and identified, the court
      cannot proceed.
      3) Any indication that a "person"
      in court is the same "person" being arraigned
      is sufficient to allow the court
      to proceed with the arraignment, indictment,
      etc.
      At first glance, the identification
      requirement seems unremarkable, but
      there could be some unexpected confusion
      since, today, the term "person"
      includes both "real" and "artificial"
      entities. A "real" entity is a natural, living,
      flesh-and-blood man or woman.
      An "artificial" entity includes imaginary,
      man-made "creations" like corporations
      and trusts.
      As explained in "My Evil Twin"
      (this issue of the AntiShyster), it appears
      that the capitalized name "Alfred
      Norman Adask" identifies the real, flesh
      and blood "person" who – as a member
      of We The People – is generally
      superior to government's administrative
      authority. However, the "same" name
      written in upper-case letters "ALFRED
      N. ADASK" may identify an artificial
      entity which is completely subject to
      government control. As a result, although
      the two names sound alike, if
      they identify two entirely different legal
      entities, they are not really the
      "same".
      Unfortunately, while the distinction
      between the two name forms can
      be seen in print, it can't be heard in
      speech. This may be important since a
      real defendant (Alfred) has constitutionally-
      protected, God-given legal
      rights which must be tried in law, an
      artificial entity (ALFRED) being
      "tried" (actually "administered") in "equity",
      has no legal rights whatever.
      So what would happen if the
      judge called out the name "ALFRED
      N. ADASK" (artificial entity) and "Alfred
      Norman Adask" (real) heard the
      sound of a name similar to his own, assumed
      the judge was talking to him, and
      mistakenly raised his hand to signal he
      (Alfred) was ALFRED? Could the
      court be so blind (or deceptive) as to
      allow "Alfred N. Adask" to be arraigned
      in the stead of "ALFRED N. ADASK"?
      I think the answer is Yes.
      If so, it seems probable that if you
      were able to properly notify the court
      that you are John B. Doe (real) rather
      than JOHN B. DOE (artificial), you
      might be able to avoid administrative
      hearings whenever the government's
      paperwork identified and sought to "arraign"
      or "administer" JOHN B. DOE
      (a creature of the state).20
      4) Now, here's the good part:
      Note that according to Bouvier's definition,
      after the proper person is identified,
      and the charge read to him: ". . .
      the clerk proceeds to the third part, by
      adding, `How say you, A B, are you
      guilty or not guilty?'"
      If the defendant pleads "guilty",
      the trial moves directly to the judgment
      phase where the judge pronounces punishment.
      But, if the defendant "answers
      `not guilty' . . . and the clerk or attorney
      general [prosecutor], replies that he
      is guilty; then an issue is formed."
      See it?!
      The definition implies that – in
      law – it's not enough that you merely
      respond "not guilty" to the
      government's charges. After you plead
      "not guilty," someone from the
      government's side (either the clerk or
      prosecutor) must contradict your "not
      guilty" plea by "replying" that you are
      guilty. Why? Just like the definition
      says, to "form" an "issue".21
      What's an "issue"? It's a controversy
      that seeks settlement by the
      court of law. For example, if I say you
      stole my money, and you must say you
      didn't. One of us argues Yes, the other
      No. Now we have an "issue" which
      allows the court to use it's various procedures
      to determine which of us has
      sufficient evidence to "prove" his argument.
      But without an "issue", the court
      of law has nothing to determine, nothing
      to decide, no evidence to compare
      and weigh – nothing to adjudicate. And
      that probably means no legal jurisdiction.
      In my experience of alleged arraignments
      and apparent trials, the prosecutor
      reads the charges and the judge
      asks the defendant, "How do you plead?
      Guilty or Not Guilty?" The defendant
      (typically) says "Not Guilty", and the
      judge says, something like, "OK, Mr.
      Prosecutor, bring on your first witness."
      But no one contradicts the defendant's
      "not guilty" plea. The prosecutor does
      not "reply" (as Bouvier requires) that
      "Oh, yessss he is, Your Honor! He is
      guilty as Hell!" (or words to that effect).
      Therefore, if you are charged
      with an apparent crime and the court
      asks for your pleas ("Not guilty"), but
      the prosecutor offers no contrary response
      to your plea, could it be that you
      are being "tried" in equity rather than
      law? If so, it might follow that a
      "charge" in a court of equity is not a
      question waiting for a preliminary answer
      from the defendant, but an administrative
      statement of fact that is already
      presumed to be true. In other words, in
      equity, there might not be a presumption
      of innocence for the defendant/beneficiary.
      However, if there is any presumption
      of "innocence" or honesty in
      courts of equity, that presumption favors
      the plaintiff/prosecutor/trustee.
      If a charge in equity is really just
      a statement of administrative fact presumed
      to be true – where is the controversy?
      Without a presumption of innocence,
      a declaration of innocence, and
      the prosecution's contradictory reply,
      where is the "issue" for the court to adjudicate
      in law? And if there's no issue
      but the court still proceeds – what can
      that mean, except maybe it's not a court
      of law? Maybe it's some other kind of
      court that does not require a bona fide
      "issue" to proceed. Maybe it's a court
      of equity.
      Of course, perhaps arraignment
      procedure in law has fundamentally
      changed since Bouvier defined "arraignment"
      in 1856. But I'll bet it
      hasn't. I'll bet that over time we've
      been deceived into assuming that an "issue"
      for the court to adjudicate in law
      (not administer in equity) is created
      when 1) the prosecutor first reads the
      charge, and 2) the defendant denies the
      charge by pleading "not guilty". We
      have assumed the defendant's reply
      ("not guilty") contradicted the
      prosecutor's charge and thereby created
      an issue empowering the court to proceed
      in law.
      Maybe so. After all, what difference
      does it make if I deny the
      prosecutor's charges, or if the prosecutor
      denies my "not guilty" plea? Maybe
      none, but if it doesn't matter, why did
      the procedure change? Why has government
      decided that it no longer needs
      to contradict a defendant's "not guilty"
      plea?
      As usual, I don't know. But I suspect
      that lack of contradiction by the
      government signals the case is not an
      "issue" to be adjudicated in law – it's a
      "dispute" to be administered in equity.
      If so, the average defendant could argue
      endlessly about his "constitutional
      rights" (which clearly exist in law) and
      still be found guilty when the judge rules
      his arguments are "frivolous".
      The presumed defendant (who
      assumes he's being tried in law) would
      be incensed that the judge ignored his
      "constitutional arguments". But if the
      case were actually being heard in equity,
      1) the "defendant" would probably
      have the legal status of a "beneficiary";
      and 2) the only relevant "law" (the "law
      of the case") would be the contract or
      trust indenture under which the defendant/
      beneficiary was being "tried". Until
      the defendant/beneficiary identified
      that underlying contract or trust indenture
      and rendered it void (perhaps for
      fraud), the defendant/beneficiary would
      remain in equity where "constitutional
      rights" are irrelevant and only government
      "policy" may (or may not) be honored
      according to the judge's conscience
      and personal discretion.
      Again, all of this is conjectural.
      Nevertheless, it appears that since a
      modern "arraignment" does not follow
      the 1856 procedure for creating an "issue"
      in law, the modern arraignment
      does not, in fact, take place in law, but
      rather in equity. If so, anyone who argues
      law in an equitable, administrative
      hearing is as foolish as a man arguing
      football rules at a baseball game, and
      therefore bound to lose.
      However, where previously, the
      foolish man was the defendant arguing
      law, it might be that by understanding
      and arguing (or challenging) equity, we
      might be able to expose the prosecutor
      or plaintiff as the fool, since I doubt that
      any of `em are prepared to concede the
      deception and admit that almost all of
      their trials are in equity.
      Summary
      Historically, courts of equity have
      had four important characteristics that
      allow them to operate in ways that
      would appear illegal or unconstitutional
      in courts of law. First, courts of equity
      have no obligation to recognize legal
      rights or legal arguments. Second, they
      function almost entirely according to
      the alleged "conscience" and personal
      discretion (unbridled power) of the
      judge on a case-by-case basis. Third,
      they are the natural court to hear cases
      based on trusts. Fourth, they are primarily
      available to hear the pleas of trust
      beneficiaries who, by definition, have
      no legal title and therefore no legal
      rights to property.
      Today, our courts routinely behave
      in ways that seem unpredictable
      and contrary to law. There are several
      hypotheses to explain these apparent
      contradictions. This article explored the
      possibility that, for reasons yet to be
      fully understood, our courts of law have
      virtually disappeared and our preexisting
      courts of equity have surreptitiously
      "expanded" to fill the void. If so, when
      we assume we are being tried in law,
      we are actually being administered in equity.
      Failure to recognize this hypothetical
      distinction guarantees a judicial loss.
      This hypothesis is unproven, but
      there is indirect evidence that suggests
      our cases are routinely administered in
      courts of equity rather than tried in
      courts of law. This indirect evidence
      is seen primarily in the similarities between
      the apparently unconstitutional
      powers of today's courts and the legitimate
      powers that could be exercised by
      courts of equity. In other words, our
      current complaints about our presumed
      courts of law might be explained if our
      presumption was false and, in fact, our
      courts were courts of equity.
      The research (and conjecture)
      continues.
      1 How `bout the reciprocal rights
      of the trustees and beneficiaries of trusts?
      Are those "private" and therefore
      "relative", vague and undefined?
      2 This implies that only beneficiaries
      (who, by definition, have only
      equitable title to trust property) can sue in
      courts of equity. More importantly,
      anyone defined as a "beneficiary" has no
      legal standing and may therefore be
      "lawfully" denied access to courts of law.
      Perhaps only trustees (who retain legal
      title to trust property) have automatic
      access to courts of law.
      3 Law describes the correlative
      relationship between rights and duties. In
      this sense, law is first an exercise in logic:
      If A, then B. If one person has a right
      (A), then by "law", another person must
      have a correlative duty (B). For example,
      if I paid for and have a right to a property,
      the previous owner has a duty to give me
      that property. However, some people do
      not obey this "natural" logical law.
      Therefore, governments are instituted to
      pass positive laws which declare in no
      uncertain terms, "If A, then B – or else
      C". Now, if the former owner of the
      property refuses to surrender it to me,
      government has a duty to enforce my right
      by compelling the person to give me the
      property and may even punish the person
      for failing to do so voluntarily. But if I
      have no right, no person has a correlative
      duty, and government has no duty of
      enforcement. More importantly, without
      rights, there can be no "logical equation"
      – there is no law.
      4 If law is either "positive" or
      "natural" (equitable), then perhaps the
      Congressional statutes codified in "nonpositive"
      federal Titles (like Title 26; the
      IRS laws) have been passed as equity
      rather than law.
      5 "Equity" is not listed as a "class"
      or "system" of law – but as you'll see in
      subsequent definitions of "equity" and
      "equitable" – natural law and equity may
      be synonymous.
      6 Whose "conscience"? The
      judge's conscience. This is consistent
      with modern observations of unbridled
      judicial power.
      7 I.e., "law" and "equity" are
      exclusive and separate. Therefore legal
      arguments and remedies that may be
      compelling in courts of law have no force
      (they are "frivolous") in a court of equity.
      8 This implies that unlike our
      intrinsic, unalienable, legal rights (given
      us by God), equitable rights are virtually
      nonexistent without a court's declaration.
      While litigants can demand their legal
      rights from other people, they can only
      can only ask, plead, and "pray" that their
      equitable rights be enforced by a court of
      equity. Your vague, imperfect equitable
      rights do not exist without a government/
      court's declaration.
      9 The probable explanation is
      obvious; they resulted from the usurpation
      of power by government officials who
      were frustrated by legal impediments
      imposed by the God-given rights of
      "uppity" common litigants.
      10 In 1856, by their procedural
      "forms" you could know them. However,
      since the 1930's and later federal laws
      passed in 1982, the procedural "forms" of
      law and equity have been "combined", are
      now virtually indistinguishable and give
      no prima facie clue to their substance.
      11 "Circumstances" – not law. I.e.,
      the court of equity judge has virtually
      unlimited discretion/ power. Although we
      falsely believe all our "rights" are
      immutable, courts of equity exist, in part,
      to "modify", "restrain", or "adjust" our
      rights! Unfortunately, few of us understand
      the difference between legal and
      equitable rights. I suspect courts of
      equity can only "modify" our equitable
      rights – but may not be able to even
      recognize our legal rights!
      12 "Concurrent jurisdiction" is
      consistent with "patriot" complaints that
      judges exercise "dual" jurisdictions and/
      or extralegal powers.
      13 Does this mean that all traffic
      "accidents" and insurance cases must be
      administered in courts of equity?
      14 This implies that a fundamental
      purpose for equity is to ignore on a caseby-
      case basis those laws which are seen as
      "unfair" or "politically incorrect" and
      allow decisions according to "public
      policy" or even public opinion rather than
      positive law.
      15 This sounds much like the
      current judicial system's emphasis on
      "discovery".
      16 Based on the "testimony" in a
      court of equity, could a litigant appeal to a
      real court of law in a subsequent "trial de
      novo"?
      17 This implies that courts of
      equity may hear "disputes" presented by
      "disputants" (if there are such things),
      while courts of law hear "controverseys"
      presented by "litigants".
      18 I.e., trust-based cases are
      usually heard in equity. If government is
      using trusts to (usually) place us in the
      status of beneficiaries, then our cases
      might always be administered in courts of
      equity.
      19 This might mean equity courts
      can reinterpret contracts according to the
      "real" intentions of the parties. If so, this
      power could be easily mistaken for
      making ex post facto laws.
      20 I've only seen one court case in
      my life wherein the defendants were
      identified in the case title by their
      Capitalized Names rather than their
      UPPER CASE NAMES. It was a
      criminal trial of three judges. I'm not sure
      why the Judges used their Capitalized
      Names, but perhaps doing so served
      notice on the face of the court documents
      that they were real persons (not artificial),
      possibly members of We The People (the
      court's creator) and therefore not
      automatically subject to the court's
      jurisdiction.
      21 This implies that a "charge" in
      law may not be a statement so much as a
      question, as in, "According to this piece
      of paper (not a real man) Bill Smith says
      you killed Bob Jones – true or false?" If
      you, a real person, answer False (not
      guilty), some other real person must stand
      up and contradict your answer. Real
      persons are presumed innocent. That is,
      real persons are presumed to have
      answered truthfully. Therefore, it's up to
      the opposing party to present enough
      evidence to prove you are lying and
      therefore guilty of the alleged crime.
    • ebanna
      ... Will ... I recently went to court for traffic infractions. My motions to UPHOLD AND PROTECT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were ignored!!! They would not
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 26, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "fastmuscleman"
        <m.schrader1@c...> wrote:
        > Do you know, if the court operates in Law or Equity? If Not, You
        Will
        > Lose!
        > "In Law or Equity"?>

        I recently went to "court" for traffic infractions. My motions to
        UPHOLD AND PROTECT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were ignored!!! They
        would not grant this motion! They indirectly deny it!!

        Best Regards
      • Frog Farmer
        ... This makes sense, since anyone with rights they didn t want to waive would never voluntarily enter a court for an infraction . That waives your rights
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 21, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 05:06 PM, ebanna wrote:

          > I recently went to "court" for traffic infractions. My motions to
          > UPHOLD AND PROTECT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were ignored!!! They
          > would not grant this motion! They indirectly deny it!!
          >

          This makes sense, since anyone with rights they didn't want to waive
          would never voluntarily enter a court for an "infraction". That waives
          your rights right there. It doesn't make sense to waive rights and then
          ask for them back right away. Also, motions grant jurisdiction, so by
          entering the motions, it proves you knew you were in the right court
          (for you) where rights are not an issue.

          Maybe next time you'll act like a person with rights, instead of a
          subject in submission.
        • Cloverleaf762
          You do not have any rights as a US citizen. You have to have proper standing as an American national. Then you do a rule 12 motion before anything serious. A
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 23, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            You do not have any rights as a US citizen. You have to have proper standing
            as an American national. Then you do a rule 12 motion before anything
            serious. A traffic ticket would never see the light of day if you pull your
            vehicle from state ownership.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
            Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:25 AM
            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Do you know, if the court operates in Law
            or Equity? If Not, You Will Lose!



            On Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 05:06 PM, ebanna wrote:

            > I recently went to "court" for traffic infractions. My motions to
            > UPHOLD AND PROTECT MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS were ignored!!! They would
            > not grant this motion! They indirectly deny it!!
            >

            This makes sense, since anyone with rights they didn't want to waive
            would never voluntarily enter a court for an "infraction". That waives
            your rights right there. It doesn't make sense to waive rights and then
            ask for them back right away. Also, motions grant jurisdiction, so by
            entering the motions, it proves you knew you were in the right court
            (for you) where rights are not an issue.

            Maybe next time you'll act like a person with rights, instead of a
            subject in submission.




            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy
            Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer
            at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
            http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/aQSolB/TM
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->


            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • willufight
            ... then ... how exactly, would you suggest we as natural persons act? not entering the court will result in an invalid warrant issuing & stormtroopers using
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 25, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...> wrote:

              > This makes sense, since anyone with rights they didn't want to waive
              > would never voluntarily enter a court for an "infraction". That waives
              > your rights right there. It doesn't make sense to waive rights and
              then
              > ask for them back right away. Also, motions grant jurisdiction, so by
              > entering the motions, it proves you knew you were in the right court
              > (for you) where rights are not an issue.
              >
              > Maybe next time you'll act like a person with rights, instead of a
              > subject in submission.

              how exactly, would you suggest we as natural persons act?
              not entering the court will result in an invalid warrant issuing &
              stormtroopers using it to take you to jail.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Act as if you knew you had rights, were willing to claim, exercise and defend them, instead of waiving them whenever asked, even if asked to do so by
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 27, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 07:26 PM, willufight wrote:

                > how exactly, would you suggest we as natural persons act?

                Act as if you knew you had rights, were willing to claim, exercise and
                defend them, instead of waiving them whenever asked, even if asked to do
                so by people carrying guns. It used to be that anyone could carry a
                gun. Just because a person has a gun does not mean that they are going
                to shoot you.

                > not entering the court will result in an invalid warrant issuing &
                > stormtroopers using it to take you to jail.

                Not in my experience, and not necessarily for anyone else either. Let
                me get this straight - you know you have rights, but you choose to waive
                them because you anticipate that if you do not, they will be forcibly
                denied to you? You hobble yourself right out of the starting gate, so
                in the race for freedom, you are already bound to lose.
                And then are you telling me that an invalid warrant would also have an
                effect upon you? You're not used to objecting timely, are you?

                Many times I have not accepted invitations to court, just to see if "a
                warrant for your arrest may be issued". Luckily, I learned in school
                that "may" also means "may not", as in "put your coin in the slot
                machine, and you may win".

                It also helps to learn a little law, so you might know when someone is
                lying to you about your responsibilites thereunder. If you don't know
                much, you might believe any lie anyone tells you. "All men are liars"
                says the Bible. I haven't seen many cases where "stormtroopers" don't
                lie.

                But examine this theory - you took the path of least resistence out of
                your desire for expedience and convenience. Doing that will lead to a
                loss most of the time where the law is concerned.

                In the case at hand, are you telling me that most people on this list
                have no idea that accepting charges of an infraction waives rights?
                That just prooves to me that they who believe that have not studied
                their own state laws regarding infractions, or didn't understand what
                they read when they did. I make it a practice to consciously waive no
                rights at any time for anyone. It is not required that one waive
                rights, believe it or not!

                But how would you know if you didn't know what your rights are? One who
                claims, exercises, and defends their rights has to know they have the
                rights first. You have more rights than the Bill of Rights mentions.
                One is, you have the right not to believe a lie. Most people waive that
                one first.

                Another problem is that people do not consider the consequences of their
                own rights waivers. They make all sorts of waivers and then, when the
                pain they experience as a result gets too uncomfortable, they complain
                that their rights are not being respected, forgetting that it was
                themselves who waived them in the interest of convenience and
                expedience. It's 100 times harder to regain a right already waived.
                It's better not to waive it in the first place, but that may take guts,
                time, effort, thinking, etc. Most people are lazy. People would rather
                sign an infraction ticket than not. I can't. It would waive too many
                rights that I cherish. When rights are important enough, you may decide
                not to waive them for any cause or reason, then you'll be on the right
                path to freedom.

                You cannot help what other people do; you can only help what you do. If
                you think others can force you to waive your lawful rights, watch Mel
                Gibson in "Braveheart". He didn't sign the infraction ticket, did he?
              • Frog Farmer
                I hope that you notice that I never said that US citizens have rights. And you are right about the state ownership issue. But I notice you still don t
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 27, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I hope that you notice that I never said that US citizens have rights.
                  And you are right about the state ownership issue. But I notice you
                  still don't understand that motions grant jurisdiction where there is
                  none already, and here you want to make one in an unspecified court.
                  Which court would that be that you advise people to enter making
                  jurisdiction-granting motions? I cannot afford the time for games like
                  that when instantly defending my rights would serve me better. Do you
                  see how waiving rights in the first instance creates the need for much
                  more time and expense on your part later? How could this idea best be
                  made known to the people?


                  On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 07:36 AM, Cloverleaf762 wrote:

                  > You do not have any rights as a US citizen. You have to have proper
                  > standing
                  > as an American national. Then you do a rule 12 motion before anything
                  > serious. A traffic ticket would never see the light of day if you pull
                  > your
                  > vehicle from state ownership.
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...]
                  > Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:25 AM
                  > To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Do you know, if the court operates
                  > in Law
                  > or Equity? If Not, You Will Lose!
                  >
                  > Also, motions grant jurisdiction, so by
                  > entering the motions, it proves you knew you were in the right court
                  > (for you) where rights are not an issue.
                  >
                  > Maybe next time you'll act like a person with rights, instead of a
                  > subject in submission.
                • goldphoenix@ec.rr.com
                  ... Please see www.godissovereignfast.com This has very good information on the separation of powers issue and the proper way to address presentments.
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >not entering the court will result in an invalid warrant issuing &
                    >stormtroopers using it to take you to jail.

                    Please see www.godissovereignfast.com

                    This has very good information on the separation of powers issue and the proper way to address presentments. Appearances are not necessary for a state Citizen unless probable cause and a real victim requires you to ask for an Article III court. When signing anything always reserve your rights by scribing "without prejudice" UCC 1-207 above your signature.

                    Peace,

                    goldphoenix
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.