What All Free Men Want

[Admin]

All American men want to be free from British Feudalism, free from the ownership of land by the Crown, free from the control of land by lords, free from the slavery of serfdom.

Feudalism is not only a social system; it includes also a legal system populated by attorneys, those in the British social class system who are above the rank of a gentleman and below the rank of a knight. The attorneys are given the title of nobility of "esquire". Attorneys are the mercenary paper pushing soldiers of the Crown. It takes a certain kind of social vacancy, insensitivity, and/or stupidness to qualify for the occupation of "attorney".

Attorneys are not really lawyers. They don't practice law, they practice attornment. British attornment is the feudal ceremony or process of attorning or turning a property or land over from one lord to another lord while moving the serfs or tenants or slaves along with the land. Generally, even today, attornment is the legal (but not necessarily lawful) method of maintaining the class structure by keeping the rich rich, and the poor poor. That is, it is the method of keeping the rich (wealthy) in power and keeping the poor in subjugation or slavery. The attorney's role in American Law is the same as it is in British Law. Attorneys are subtly selected and trained to have the same role in the United States of America. Generally, they are not aware that they are learning, practicing, and promoting British Feudalism, the foundation of which is laid by the American Public School System.

A lawyer, on the other hand, practices law, believes in, practices, and promotes the free exercise of intelligence, reason, invention, and conscience to provide liberty and justice for all (with equal opportunity to have access to liberty and justice) and to take special care that the weak shall not be oppressed by the strong (the code of Hamurabi), so that man's powers of intelligence, reason, invention, and conscience will not be trampled by the unreasoned and greedy forces of other men and /or governments.

A lawyer protects: labor, the right to labor and the laborer's right to the fruits of his or her labor, the right to contract (by the use of contracts), the right to demand responsible specific performance (by the use of distresses), the right to demand payment of a debt and to collect a debt (by liens), and protects the social strength which arises from the mutual and reciprocal right to the equal protection of the law, and protects all of these commercial rights to the extent of the destruction of all social class distinctions.

The law which a lawyer promotes is the commercial law of fair and equal opportunity of laboring, buying, selling and trading, without monopoly.

Clearly then, the attorney and the lawyer practice opposite systems of social reward for labor, and there is no such thing as an Attorney-at-Law, unless, by the term "law", the attorney is referring to feudal law.

Shortly after the American Civil War, several labor and resource institutions or associations were established in the United States to return the control of America to the monied elite, especially to the monied British Elite. In 1878 our American legal system came under the control of a Labor Union known as the BAR ASSOCIATION. Consequently, our courts have become closed union shops. Our judges have become the union bosses of those courts. These judges are overseen by a principal union boss or union superintendent, a Supreme Court justice of the State.

Attorneys control everything of importance in government, the Bar Association controls the Attorneys, and the monied elite control the Bar Association.

The Bar Association Labor Union only allows union "Lawyers" called "attorneys" to use the publicly tax-financed courts. The public is thus prevented from making full use of the tax financed Justice System which it has paid for through its taxes. Instead, those taxes are fraudulently used for the private transactions and accommodations of the Union "Lawyers" or attorneys, by providing courts as a privately used public office space to do business as a Union Labor Hall or Local (Union Local), with Local Rules, called the "Local Rules of the Court" which have no proven or demonstrated basis in commercial law, common law, or statutory law.

The ultimate objective of the Bar Association is to overthrow the Government of the United States of America and its Constitution, and to re-establish an incontestable form of British Feudalism in America and the rest of the World which will eventually become the New World Order.

Free Men want the Bar Association to be abolished, and the Commercial and Common Law Systems of the United States of America and its Constitution to be totally reinstalled.

[Lawyerdude]

Hartford Van Dyke is typical of the PNJ - Patriot Nut Jobs. I tried to help Van Dyke before he went to prison. He has surrounded himself with feeble brained uneducated idiots. They can't even send a letter correctly. They are all paranoid PJNs.
Van Dyke is in prison now. I don't know how he could possibly have written the article unless he wrote it before prison.
It is not even much of an article. Just rant.
He has no education.
Like many uneducated people, Van Dyke makes up his own special definition of words. This is a train of the uneducated and the PNJs. One such person who makes up his own personal definitions is Ed Heimlich of Ed44 group http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ed44 .
Boiled down to its simplest terms, this lunatic essay of Van Dyke says that Lawyers fall into two groups: those who are loyal to individualist sentiments, and those who work for the crown. Then this nutjob labels the two groups with words that already have established meanings DIFFFERENT than what he proposes. This is bad writing style at best, more likely indicia of mental illness.
Van Dyke is languishing in a federal prison in Washington state for defrauding folks by means of his own special currency.
This Sui Juris group does a disservice by promoting books by this nutjob. The weak minds of the public should be reading lawbooks written by lawyers - the the feeble minded rantings of the mentally ill like Van Dyke.
I am Lawyerdude. 541 476 8954. Heed my words; I am smarter than you! You can find me on Google.

To whom do you refer to when you say ‘weak minds of the public’? The people of the land are in the private, and the government is the re-PUBLIC

public 1) n. the [private] people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, WHICH THE [re-PUBLIC] GOVERNMENT SERVES.

2) adj. referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads

[outlaw]

It appears to me the author describes lawyering as an admirable profession. And, to me the outstanding point of the article, that lawyering is the polar opposite of the profession we call "attorney". His argument seems logical and compliments my private impression of the nature of man and the world.

Although, I'm not in a position to corroborate his argument, nor am I saying I agree with every (or any) point. But I do think the argument is feasible and we should carefully investigate and discuss it.

Additionally, after reading "lawyerdude"'s injurious statements about the author's reputation apparently after he read the article, I recalled an article I read somewhere that identified common tactics used by the "status quo" to squelch calls for change. One of the tactics was to respond to the call by making injurious statements about the caller's reputation (which, by the way, if false constitutes slander...dude).

This type of response (attack the messenger) is, of course, in stark contrast to actually countering the merits of the argument with substantive statements and letting the reader seek the truth of the matter. After all, what does the message have to do with the messenger? Who in their right mind would determine the accuracy or validity of a statement based on the character of the stater? It IS possible for a deceiver or an idiot to speak the truth! The truth is the truth no matter who states it. (Not that any one of us actually has the pure truth to state, but that's a whole other sermon.)

Just one man's observation. Take it for what it's worth.

[essentialer]

Originally Posted by Lawyerdude

Hartford Van Dyke is typical of the PNJ - Patriot Nut Jobs. I tried to help Van Dyke before he went to prison. He has surrounded himself with feeble brained uneducated idiots. They can't even send a letter correctly. They are all paranoid PJNs.
Van Dyke is in prison now. I don't know how he could possibly have written the article unless he wrote it before prison.
It is not even much of an article. Just rant.
He has no education.
Like many uneducated people, Van Dyke makes up his own special definition of words. This is a train of the uneducated and the PNJs. One such person who makes up his own personal definitions is Ed Heimlich of Ed44 group http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ed44 .
Boiled down to its simplest terms, this lunatic essay of Van Dyke says that Lawyers fall into two groups: those who are loyal to individualist sentiments, and those who work for the crown. Then this nutjob labels the two groups with words that already have established meanings DIFFFERENT than what he proposes. This is bad writing style at best, more likely indicia of mental illness.
Van Dyke is languishing in a federal prison in Washington state for defrauding folks by means of his own special currency.
This Sui Juris group does a disservice by promoting books by this nutjob. The weak minds of the public should be reading lawbooks written by lawyers - the the feeble minded rantings of the mentally ill like Van Dyke.
I am Lawyerdude. 541 476 8954. Heed my words; I am smarter than you! You can find me on Google.

Well, well, well, that was quite a self-aggrandizing little speech and put-down of a very intelligent and highly educated man. I was going to start off "with all due respect," but then I read where you wrote "I am smarter than you" and I decided to can the politeness. Lawyerdude, you are the lunatic. I didn't read the article that was supposed to have been written by Hartford because I do not know if he wrote it, Hartford does not speak in sentimental terms, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know Hartford.

You have made and shared assessments regarding someone you don't even know, and probably have never even spoken with at length. I know Hartford, and therefore, I know by your words that you do not know him. You are telling the world that he is uneducated. Truth is, place you beside him, and your little brain will look like a peanut. Out of respect for everyone else, I can't write the descriptions I would like to call you. However, I will call you a blabbering idot because that is exactly what you sound like to someone who knows Hartford.

Hartford is a genius, far smarter than you seem to think you are. He invented, among other things, the Thermistor, which is an implant which some diabetics can have put in the wrist and gives off a little electrical shock as a warning. Uneducated? Hardly. He is the author of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. You call that uneducated?

FYI, many of his Public Wealth Rebate Notes were funded by the U.S. Government. Notes went to all the counties in Washington, those who presented them received payment. Social Security received a huge chunk, and accepted it. I was there when he called Social Security to make the arrangements, in fact, he used my cell phone to make the call. He is in prison because the government didn't want the truth to get out about his lien-backed notes. The Secret Service officers, which he visited with in their office, told him there was nothing wrong with his notes, and that some of them had been redeemed, but they asked him not to write any more. If it had been illegal, they would have told him the notes were no good and arrested him then. However, the government had to plot how they would stop him. I don't believe the prosecutors made any mention in court of the fact that the SSA took his note, and benefitted from it.

You tried to help Hartford? How so? You called him? You went to see him? You wrote to him? How did you try to help Hartford? And what makes you think your "help" would have prevented the government from taking another political prisoner? Oh, you are so good at what you do? You are so much smarter than Hartford? Think again, stupid. Take that paper bag off your head so you can see the real world.