"BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY"
Several years ago, I encountered on the Net a man named David Gould who made the groundless assertion that the word "BAR" in reference to professional associations of lawyers meant "British Accreditation Regency". This nonsense appeared to be nothing more than disinformation promoted by wild-eyed gurus, typically associated with Wrong Way Law types who believed arguments like the missing 13th Amendment, names in CAPS, etc. Gould was reputed to be addicted to TV cartoon shows and he obtained his legal information only from the Net. During a trip to Phoenix in early 2000, I learned that Gould apparently acquired this idea about "BAR" from another man named Sean Rice, who at the time was leagued in some fashion with the Zidar group in Phoenix. Later information from those who knew Rice clearly indicated that Rice was at least a confidential informant ("CI") working with federal law enforcement. The feds do have an interest in sowing garbage arguments in the freedom movement. The feds also love to have people act on their own without benefit of sound advice from legal counsel.
But over time, more and more gurus have been making this unfounded claim. For example, one promoter's web site states:
"The owners who control the American BAR Association are a private corporation whose headquarters are located in England. BAR stands for British Accredited Registry. Attorneys at law are given the title of 'Esquire' through the BAR, a title meaning 'Shield Bearer'; they carry this shield for the 'Crown of the City of London'. Attorney: one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land."There are probably 4 or 5 other promoters of this idea which lacks any factual basis.
I suggest that the American Bar Association itself be consulted to determine whether the above contention is correct. At the ABA web site, this is found:
"The ABA was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states."The original constitution for that organization, as amended, still governs it. Its headquarters are located at American Bar Association, 740 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-1019. It declares that "the ABA is a national, voluntary professional organization. We have no role in administering bar exams or licensing attorneys in the U.S." It has no legal association with Britain or its Monarch. Only American lawyers and others having related occupations (like law librarians) can join (there is an international section of "associates"). Not every American lawyer is a member; I am not and I know many others who are not.
Further, a search on the Net regarding either the terms "British Accreditation Regency" or "British Accredited Registry" reveals that such an entity does not exist. If it exists, what is the address of BAR? If it exists at all, it is in the minds of the promoters of this nonsense.
What about this supposed allegiance to the "Crown"? Alabama lawyers take, via Alabama Code §34-3-15, the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself as an attorney, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity, as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice and that I will support the Constitution of the state of Alabama and of the United States, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, so help me God."Nothing in this oath mentions anything about having allegiance to British entities. Instead, when I was sworn, I made an oath to support the US and Alabama Constitutions, not something British, either its people or the British "unwritten" constitution. See the oath for Mississippi lawyers, and Georgia's Rule 16, Rules for Governing Admission to the Practice of Law.
The oath taken by Florida lawyers is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear:Rule 402, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, provides that lawyers are to take the following oath:"I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida;
"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;
"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;
"I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval;
"I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:Oaths taken by attorneys in other States are similar. For example, the statutorily mandated oath in Oklahoma provides:"I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge those duties and will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States;
"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;
"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defenses except those I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime;
"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me only such means as are consistent with trust and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;
"I will respect the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval;
"I will abstain from all offensive personalities, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;
"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice;
"So help me God."
"Upon being permitted to practice as attorneys and counselors at law, they shall, in open court, take the following oath: You do solemnly swear that you will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; that you will do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court, and if you know of any you will give knowledge thereof to the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; you will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney in this court according to your best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client, so help you God." 5 O.S. § 2 (OSCN 2001).The oath Tennessee lawyers take is somewhat shorter. Rule 6, Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, requires the following oath for attorneys:
"I * [name] * do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and that I will truly and honestly demean myself in the practice of my profession to the best of my skill and abilities, so help me God."The oath Texas lawyers take is:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of the law, and will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability. So help me God."Wyoming Code §33-5-112 provides:
"No person shall be deemed admitted to the bar until he shall have taken an oath to the effect that he will support, obey, and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and honestly and to the best of his ability discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor-at-law."See also California Business and Professions Code §§6067-68, Indiana Code §33-21-1-1, Idaho Code §3-201, Kentucky SCR §2.010, Montana Code §37-61-207, North Carolina Gen. Statutes §11-11, and Virginia Code § 54.1-3903.
Precisely where does one find this supposed allegiance to the "Crown of the City of London"? If anything, attorneys have taken an oath and are "shield bearers" to not only their clients, but also for the U.S. and various State constitutions.
A lawyer upon admission to a State bar association enters a regulated profession. To become a lawyer, one must today attend college and graduate, and then attend three years of law school. After graduation, the bar exam must be taken and passed. Then a lawyer is sworn and I doubt that any of the statutorily mandated oaths of any State of this nation is substantially different from the oath I took and the others noted above.
The profession itself imposes certain duties upon lawyers, including ethical conduct. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are posted at the web site of the ABA. If you want to read the ethical rules for lawyers in all of the American States, this site at Cornell contains the links. This FindLaw link will also send you to these rules of ethics. See also CODE OF CONDUCT FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES.
What legal training do these gurus have? Are they under any legal obligation to provide sound legal advice? The absence of any such duty on their part leaves them free to promote whatever wacky ideas they want, dressed in the garb of a legal argument. This is why they promote arguments like the UCC, redemption, three judge courts, "we are Brits," and others noted on this web site. To dissuade you from seeking the advice of a competent lawyer regarding the validity of the arguments of gurus, they have invented this baseless "Bar" contention, which I trace back to Sean Rice. Federal and state law enforcement agencies surely desire to have people in the freedom movement following utterly groundless legal arguments: it makes their job easier.
These same "Bar" contention gurus also try to make a case based upon the word, "attorn." Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "attorn" as follows: "To turn * * * In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate." History of feudal times provides the meaning of this term. After the Norman conquest in 1066, feudalism was completely established in England (this system had its origins in Medieval Europe). The nobility were the friends and court favorites of the monarch and consequently held estates beneath the King, who owned all the land. Possession of the land was similarly held at will by other parties below the nobles. But nobody "owned" (in the modern sense of ownership) the land; it was owned by the King. These "at will" estates allowed an occupant to possess the land so long as duties of "homage and service" to the superior were met. See the Calverts of Maryland. The most common duties included making payments of rents and crops, providing soldiers for defense and for war, etc. Some of these duties were discharged by new brides: their wedding nights were spent not with their new husbands, but with the landlord ("first night"). But the most important duty was that of allegiance of the tenant to his landlord. These duties were often oppressive, leading to controversies and revolts.
If a tenant desired to vacate his estate and transfer it to another, the superior landlord had to approve. Obviously if the estate in question was that of a mere villein, the landlord most likely would only want a hard worker in his place. But for larger estates, there were obviously different considerations for landlords. If some duke who was the immediate tenant of the King wanted to leave England to marry and live in France, the King would only approve someone whom he knew was absolutely faithful to him. Thus, changes in estates from one tenant to another were complicated procedures. And a change of the estate of a duke, for example, required those who were his tenants to pay the same "homage and services" to the new landlord. But it seems fair to say that most changes in estates, "attorning," were accomplished by the parties themselves without the assistance of any other person. If another party did assist this procedure in some way, that party was obviously someone who was well connected and politically astute. It did not require, however, somebody like a lawyer.
But in a sense, "feudalism" itself was "attorned" and the lawyers did it. Over a period of several hundred years, the old common lawyers methodically kept arguing and getting judicial approval for recognition of ownership rights in land. Slowly and surely, the courts began to recognize that tenants had certain rights to the land they possessed and eventually, the tenants became owners. Over time, the Monarchs lost title of the land to the tenants. While at the height of feudalism in England, a king could go anywhere he wanted and could even force villeins to build bridges for him over creeks, eventually the king not only lost title to the land, but it became recognized that a mere villein was "king of his own castle" and the king could not even enter his humble abode. This "alienation of the estate" away from the King to the tenants was the accomplishment of the old common lawyers and judges.
I wish that the "attorn" advocates would get the story straight. Perhaps they would learn something by watching some movies about feudal England, like "Braveheart." They don't because they fail to read and study (or watch movies); they are prone to just follow rumor and hearsay rather than making the effort to confirm the accuracy of an historical fact or law. This explains why they build and sell arguments based upon statutes that no longer exist. To confirm that which I stated above regarding lawyers "attorning the king," may I suggest Bergin & Haskell's Estates in Land and Future Interests, which explains this evolution of estates from ownership of the king to the tenants. Of course, there are other similar works in law libraries, but I doubt that any of these "Bar" advocates can find their way there. But if they did, they would be lost once inside.
Those who advocate this "BAR" argument are using lies to sell garbage legal arguments like names in CAPS, missing 13th Amendment, redemption, etc. If you buy into their position, expect to be sold some trashy legal argument without substance ("make yourself an alien"). These gurus do not want you to ask a lawyer whether the legal arguments they promote have any validity. Buyer beware.
No comments:
Post a Comment