CLR - The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is

Common Law Remedy — The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is 6/3/21, 6:18 PM
The American Legal System Is

Not What You Think It Is
What I Have Learned So Far
Anyone who has a knowledge of American history — and I'm not referring to
what the government run propaganda education regime teaches in the public
school system, but rather with first hand source material — knows with
unquestioned certainty that in truth, according to that history, the American
republic, for all intents and purposes, ended on March 27th, 1861 when seven
southern states seceded from the Union and Congress adjourned sine die,
without a quorum necessary to establish a new session of Congress. From
that point on a revised agenda for the United States was being planned and
implemented by private (both domestic and foreign) banking concerns on
behalf of its hidden (or secret) patron, the Roman Catholic Church. The
period of de jure (or in law) legal matters in the courts was shortly destined
to begin a gradual decline over the decades to follow as a result of the war
being fomented with the contentious Southern states by the newly elected
President Lincoln.
For the gullible American public of the time, the writing in the polititial
discourse had been on the wall regarding the possibility of the secession of
Southern states in the years leading up to the 1860 November elections. To
use a favored term of the contemporary media, the narrative in the press at
that time went that the predominately agrarian Southern states were balking
at the progressive stance that one candidate for the presidency, Abraham
Lincoln, took regarding the ending of slavery. Ten of these Southern states
balked so much that they left Lincoln’s name off the ballot. Not one vote was
cast for Lincoln in the Southern states. Yet, despite that Lincoln, in a four
http://www.beattraffictickets.org/articles/american-legal-system-not-what-you-think-it-is.html Page 1 of 14
man field vying for the Office, won the popular vote with a miserly 40% of the
vote (ostensibly based on the popularity of his anti-slavery stance in the
Northern states) and garnered enough electorial votes to capture the
presidency.
As far as the political interests of the South were concerned, any national
presidency which included Abraham Lincoln was a non-starter. He
threatened the South’s way of life and economy by proposing the national end
of slavery, the prevailing source of cheap labor for the mainly agarian
Southern states which in turn supplied the Northern manufacturing and
other industrial concerns with much of its raw material. As far as the South
was concerned, the whole American economy at that time was being
threatened. And most assuredly, the economy of the South was on the
chopping block should an abolitionist ln be elected. [Somehow, this sounds
eerily familiar to current events occurring in America.]
By 1860 the banking business in the United States had undergone several
changes while generally being able to maintain solvency. The second central
bank established for the nation — the Bank of the United States — had shut
its doors in 1841, its charter not being extended by Congress. Yet by
December of 1861, eight months after the precipitation of the War Between
the States by Lincoln ostensibly to preserve the Union, the de facto federal
government — operating outside of law as “a monocratic military
despotism”[1] — and its Treasury which had been printing greenbacks to
finance the War while at the same time suspending convertibility of paper
into specie, were about to take on changes that would reverberate well into
the future. Foreign financiers were leery about accepting the greenback as
payment for goods, and therein lies all you need to know about one of the
more important sources of the conflict, and why Lincoln wanted to maintain
the South in the Union. He needed their economic input to help service the
national debt.
If you want to comprehend the gradual degradation of the American legal

system, you have to trace its history back to its beginnings in order to discern
the cause of its present condition. Virtually from the beginning, the legal
system was set up in order to collect on the debt owe to the King of England
(see the newsletter edition The New Face of War! Part Two for an
explanation), who had financed both sides in the war that is being called the
Revolutionary War.
International law allows for the collection of debt between two countries
under Admiralty and Maritime law. Once you figure out that the United
States Constitution was essentially a bankruptcy instrument which
established the United States as part of a trust set up in order to clear off the
debt with Mother England after the so-called Revolution, then you begin to
see how the Inner Temple (one of the four Inns of Court of the English Bar
which is a professional association for barristers and judges) within the City
of London became connected to the legal system in the United States. The
way you (as the monarch of England) collect debt from someone or some
legal entity (the thirty-three united States of America) who doesn’t want to
pay is through the court system by setting up your own legal apparatus to do
so.
Strikingly the modern day Inner Temple is an independent unincorporated

organization which operates as a trust. It has approximately eight thousand
(8,000) members and roughly four hundred fifty (450) applicants apply to
join each year. According to one account, although the Inn was previously a
disciplinary and teaching body, these functions are now shared between the
four Inns of Court, with the Bar Standards Board (a division of the General
Council of the Bar) acting as a disciplinary body and the Inns of Court and
Bar Educational Trust providing education.
In order to fully appreciate and understand the importance of the advent of

the Temple, it is necessary to note that the history of the Inner Temple
begins in the early years of the reign of Henry II (1154–1189) when it was
established by the Knights Templar in London to a new location on the
banks of the River Thames. And who are the Knights Templar, you might
ask? Good question. The Knights Templar or simply the Templars, were a
Catholic military order founded in 1119, headquartered on the Temple
Mount in Jerusalem through 1128 when they went to meet with Pope
Honorius II. They were recognized in 1139 by the papal bull Omne datum
optimum. The order was active until 1312 when it was perpetually suppressed
by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox in excelso. This early history is important
as it lays a foundation in law for what was later to come.
Even more revealing about the Templars is the fact that they were a favored
charity throughout Christendom, and grew rapidly in membership and
power. They were prominent in Christian finance. At one point they managed
a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, and developed
innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking.
They built their own network of nearly one thousand (1,000) commanderies
and fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land, and arguably formed
the world’s first multinational corporation. This is all relevant history
which we will touch upon briefly in order to provide the historical context for
one half of the legal system established in America.
The Templar Order, though its members were sworn to individual poverty,
was given control of wealth other than through direct donations. For
example, a nobleman who was interested in participating in the Crusades
might place all his assets (in trust, perhaps one of the first formal trust
creations in law in the Middle Ages) under Templar management while he

was away. The Templars accumulated wealth in this manner throughout
Christendom and the Outremer (the term “outre-mer” is French for
“overseas,” and refers to the four Crusader states which were feudal polities
created by the Latin Catholic leaders of the First Crusade through conquest
and political subterfuge). Take note of the fact that the interests of the
Templars in the Outremer brings in the element of international law
jurisdiction. International law deals exclusively with legal fictions and, more
importantly, the presumption of legal fictions which has its basis in the Law
of the Sea.
Let’s continue with this revealing brief history. In 1150 the Templars began
generating letters of credit for pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land:
pilgrims depositing their valuables with a local Templar preceptory before
embarking, received a document indicating the value of their deposit, then
used that document upon arrival in the Holy Land to retrieve their funds in
an amount of treasure of equal value. This innovative arrangement was
an early form of banking and may have been the first formal
system to support the use of cheques. It improved the safety of pilgrims
by making them less attractive targets for thieves, and also contributed to the
Templar coffers.
The apple (in terms of the Templars, that is) never falls far from the tree (the
Catholic Church). The history of this account provides us with insight into
later developments in law. Although the Templars were eventually
“suppressed” (at least as far as the public was concerned), their being
essentially a Roman Catholic organization providing a front operation for the
Catholic Church’s financial interests, it provides the Church with a private
claim it can make in court under a veil of secrecy!
A veil of secrecy? How do they get away with that, you ask? Because in law
(that is, the system of common law between ordinary people) concealment of
a material fact can nullify a complaint or claim. So how does the Church
assert a veil of secrecy over a court proceeding and not be breaking the law?
Well, without having been educated by its law guild (the Inner Temple and
the various Bar Associations around the world) presuming that the answer
lies somewhere within that curriculum, your guess is as good as mine.
However, I will offer a guess which is based upon the given facts thus far.
Once you realize the entity with which you are dealing and the capacity in
which it is acting when you enter a government courtroom being run by a
state Bar Association with trained Bar Guild attorneys and judges, the
answer, perhaps, reveals itself. You must remember that the
unincorporated Inner Temple trained attorneys and legal personnel belong
to a private legal guild called the BAR, which has its own laws, perhaps based
upon the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church in order to disguise
certain aspects of its law from the public. Therefore a Roman Court (which
essentially is what you are walking into in traffic court) does not operate
according to any true rule of law, but rather by a presumption of the (private)
law it is based upon. To be more accurate, it isn’t just one presumption of law,
it is twelve presumptions of law. We will return to this anomalous fact of the
presumption of law a bit later.
It is important to take into consideration the fact that the Inner Temple is
unincorporated. Why is that important? Because that means it acts outside of
any country’s legislative written law, but rather by statute written by the legal
guild itself which makes its law private law. So that whenever you enter a
government’s courtroom, the first form of law you are first faced with having
to overcome is the presumed superior claim the Catholic Church has over
your body and soul as a legal entity “lost at sea”!
A brief aside is in order here. Although I normally abhor word play when
reading about how some principle of law is being applied, in this case it is
wholly reasonable as it helps one to recognize the, perhaps twisted, reasoning
that one side of an issue [the Vatican] uses to justify it’s actions over another
[people or “human creatures”]. As many readers are already aware if they
have done any research at all on the makeup of the contemporary American
court system, the traffic court seems to operate from the standpoint of
Admiralty law or the Law of the Sea. This is not just empty conjecture, it is a
proven fact. International law is based on the Admiralty Maritime law
jurisdiction. So, whether the court admits it or not — and in most cases it will
not admit it if asked directly — we are dealing with the Law of the Sea in
traffic court.
Now to the word play. If you look at the etymology of the English word “soul”
you will find that it derives from a Germanic word saiwalo which means “that
belonging to the sea,” which word itself is derived from the root word saiwa
or “sea,” and is based on the early Germanic belief that “souls originate in and
return to the sea.” The term “see’ comes from the Latin word “sedes"
meaning “seat” which refers to the Episcopal throne or cathedra. The term
“Apostolic See” can refer to any see founded by one of the Apostles, but when
used with the definite article, it is used in the Catholic Church to refer
specifically to the See of the Bishop of Rome, whom the Church views as
successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles.[2]
At this point you might reasonably be asking yourself, “How did I become
involved in an Admiralty case when I am on dry land?” The thought itself is
immensely confounding and puzzling, to say the least. It almost seems the
more one tries to reason it out, the less clarity one finds to justify such a
circumstance. That is until one comes across the historical precedents being
used by the Vatican to maintain its claim. The Catholic Church uses two legal
personalities with which to conduct its international affairs. The first is as an
International state known as the Vatican City State. The reigning Pope is
legally considered to be its Head of Government. The second personality is as
the supreme legal personality above all other legal personalities by which all
property and creatures on Earth are subjects.
The term Sedes Sacrorum literally translates to “Holy See” — Latin sedes for
seat or see, and sacrorum for holy — and has been used to refer to the legal
apparatus as a whole by which the Roman Catholic Pope and its Curia of
Bishops claim historical recognition as a sovereign entity with superior legal
rights. So the Catholic Church’s Holy See envisions itself as the Great
Shepherd (leader or ruler) of the World. This is plain to recognize in Pope
Boniface VIII’s 1302 landmark declaration and Papal Bull Unam Sanctum
wherein he strengthened the legal vehicle of the Holy See by issuing the bold
statement: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely
necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the
Roman pontiff.” To further extend its legal strength using its second
personality, the Catholic Church considers any region controlled by one of her
bishops a See subject to its jurisdiction through treaty.
It is this second personality which claims your body and soul based upon a
series of Papal Bulls issued over several centuries beginning with the
infamous 1302 Papal Bull Unam Sanctum that has not been rebutted by any
other international legal entity. Very simply, Unan Sanctum was in essence
an Express Trust that claimed control over the whole planet Earth, and
effectively (in International law, that is) declared the Pope of the Roman
Catholic Church as the “Supreme Ruler of the world.” The legal enforceability
of the second personality of the Catholic Church as the Holy See is dependent
on the continued adherence to legal statute, conventions, confenants and
definitions as have been accumulated since the Middle Ages concerning the
primacy of the Pope over all property and creatures. These statutes,
conventions and covenants form the foundation of today’s modern legal
system of most states in the world.
As preposterous and nonsensical as this explanation sounds in the present

day, this is the raison d’état (literally “reason of state,” or the diplomatic or
political reason) provided by governments the world over for honoring the
Vatican’s claim through treaty. That and the fact that governments relish
their ability to exert power and control over the people rather than vice versa.
But then, when you think about it, and if you’ve done a bit of research, the
world’s governments, for the most part, have all been transformed from their
original capacity as unincorporated states or nations, ostensibly serving their
citizens the people, into incorporated administrative government service
organizations (GSOs) which, using the misdirection of assumed authority
from its hidden patron the Catholic Church, ultimately serve the Vatican’s
interests.
You can confirm the fact that states, cities and even counties are incorporated
entities by looking up entities like the STATE OF ARIZONA or COUNTY OF
MARICOPA (or your own state and county) on Dun and Bradstreet to verify
their incorporation for yourself. The process of incorporation places these
entities into a totally different (and non-original constitutional) jurisdiction
from the original unincorporated state governments. These STATE OF
STATE and COUNTY OF COUNTY entities are not duly elected governments
by and for the people of a state, their officers held as fiduciary trustees for the
state citizens, but rather are business entities posing as legitimate
government. They have been bought and paid for by their unholy patron the
Vatican.
To return to the issue of the American legal system and how its courts
operate, there are two sides or forms of law which a traffic court can hear. The
first side or form of law (private law or better known as “public [corporate]
policy”) of which must first be rebutted before you can gain entry into the
second side of law (public law) as it was once passed into law by legitimate
state legislatures. In other words, what passes for law, as far as the public is
conditioned to know, is merely the corporate by-laws, the public policy, of the
incorporated STATE OF STATE. If you try to use the legal processes of
legitimate public law (e.g. the Law of the Land based in common law) through
the use of an affidavit in commerce without first rebutting the private law
that is presumed by the court to hold primary standing in the matter, you will
lose your bid to use the affidavit to defeat the issue. The court will not
recognize your affidavit.
You ask, how can this be? Doesn’t an unrebutted affidavit, when the other
side fails to respond to it with a competing affidavit, stand as truth in
commerce? Good question! When asserted outside of public policy and under
public law, yes it is. But what we who have done this in their courts and failed
have been missing is the understanding that in a modern commercial court
that first takes notice of and honors standing treaties with other nation-
states, we must rebut the presumptions that the court imposes before our
lawful processs can be recognized. These commercial courts turn the
Merchant law maxim around and states that “an unrebutted presumption
stands as Truth in commerce.” In other words, the court’s presumptions,
when unrebutted, nullified the affidavit and placed us on the private side of
the matter all the while the court pretends to be a public law court. Now, all of
a sudden, we’ve been put on the defensive we don’t know how, and have
pretty much lost any chance we might have had of prevailing.
Very simply, there are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the Private
Bar Guilds, which, if left unchallenged, stand as Truth in commerce. If we fail

to rebut each of these presumptions, one by one, meaning if even one
presumption still stands unrebutted, the court will proceed as though none of
the presumptions were rebutted. According to some sources for this
information, a document rebutting each of the twelve presumptions may be
entered in court prior to the date of hearing in order to shut the proceedings
down. According to this source, it is highly unlikely that a court would care to
attempt to proceed once the twelve presumptions of its court have been
nullified on the record of the matter.
(Disclaimer: I do not claim any experience with using this approach.

However, according to what I know from personal research and direct
knowledge of how frustrating these courts can be, this is one of the few
approaches that I would not hesitate to use if pushed because it makes sense
according to everything I’ve studied about these courts and their use of
secrecy in order to entrap their victims. In other words, you call them on their
game, and they have no comeback! Because you’ve just destroyed the premise
upon which they operate.)
The presumptions themselves, while relatively straightforward, take a bit of

time to explain and go through. Therefore, a separate article titled “The
Twelve Presumptions Of Court” will be linked to for that explanation. This
article will include information detailing how to rebut these presumptions. So
it will be well worth the reader’s time to explore these explanations in more
depth. In the meantime, a list of the twelve presumptions follows below:
1. The Presumption of Public Record
2. The Presumption of Public Service
3. The Presumption of Public Oath
4. The Presumption of Immunity
5. The Presumption of Summons
6. The Presumption of Custody
7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians
8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees
9. The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and

Beneficiary
10, The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort
11. The Presumption of Incompetence
12. The Presumption of Guilt
Once you read the explanation for each of these presumptions of court, and if
you are at all familiar with the information that generated them over and
above what I have just explained about the connections of the Vatican to our
legal system in the discussion above, this will all begin to make sense.
It also helps to realize that attorneys and members of the Bar Guild who serve
in these courts are bound by not one, but two oaths, which only makes sense.
Otherwise they would not be able to do what they do in terms of treating
people like “things.” One oath is to the corporate state as a public servant in
order to maintain the impression that access to the Law of the Land still
exists, which it does. Yet without that oath, there would be grounds for fraud,
and the charge of impersonation of a public officer! Also it helps maintain the
impression of impartiality in the public’s eyes just in case someone happens
to figure out their game and they have to dismiss a case. It’s all about the
optics!
The other oath is taken subject to their allegiance to the Bar Guild itself,
which is their primary loyalty and the first form of law that they will assert in
any legal matter because it represents their meal ticket. Just the thought that
these denizens of inequity are aware of the “legalized crime” that they commit
on a daily basis ought to be enough to get your blood boiling. Making
something legal doesn’t excuse the moral and ethical elements of the
deception and chicanery involved in luring someone into these traps. Much
less than such behavior should be allowed to be carried on unpunished.
Foreknowledge of the ambiguity of the situation ought to prove intent to
commit the crime. They know that what they are doing is morally and
ethically wrong and goes against everything they supposedly stand for as an
advocate of the law, yet they go ahead and do it because, at least for the
present, they can get away with it.
1 Our Enemy, The State by Albert Jay Nock, (Caldwell, Idaho.: Caxton
Printers, 1950), p. 171, n. 16.
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See
If you would like to learn more about concepts of law so you can avoid the
whole mess without having to “appear” in court, you can download our free
ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the
secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.
_________________
If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t
hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the
secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!
The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.

CLR - The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLR - The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Law Remedy — The American Legal System Is Not What You Think It Is 6/3/21, 6:18 PM

The American Legal System Is

If you want to comprehend the gradual degradation of the American legal

Strikingly the modern day Inner Temple is an independent unincorporated

Bar Educational Trust providing education.

In order to fully appreciate and understand the importance of the advent of

creations in law in the Middle Ages) under Templar management while he

As preposterous and nonsensical as this explanation sounds in the present

Bar Guilds, which, if left unchallenged, stand as Truth in commerce. If we fail

(Disclaimer: I do not claim any experience with using this approach.

The presumptions themselves, while relatively straightforward, take a bit of

1. The Presumption of Public Record

2. The Presumption of Public Service

3. The Presumption of Public Oath

4. The Presumption of Immunity

5. The Presumption of Summons

6. The Presumption of Custody

7. The Presumption of Court of Guardians

8. The Presumption of Court of Trustees

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

10, The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort

11. The Presumption of Incompetence

12. The Presumption of Guilt

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.

You might also like