100 YEARS of LAW & (un)JUSTICE

[xjdigger]

Booklet written by H.T. Silsby II, Alan Stone and William Dawson Jr.
Report on booklet, research, comments written by Phil Merletti

Note; It was intended by me, that you have access to the booklet “100 Years of Law and Justice” for reference and to compare the excerpts' intent that I point out and not to take anything out of context. This booklet by design, cannot be purchased, but can be accessed through the Maine State Law Library system.

It was also my intent to turn a boring booklet, which was intended for lawyers, into one that is easier for the average person to understand concerning what the judges, prosecutors and lawyers have done to us, while using their own information. Please note that this report is in draft form as needed information continues to surface that I feel needs to be explained or added to clarify the facts.

As I am only a researcher, I am not qualified to give this information as advice, it is for educational information only, and I would advise the readers to research and clarify what I submit on their own.

Also, before you read this report, it is important to understand the following information:
· Members of the Maine State Bar Association have taken an Oath to the BAR; even though the Oath does not specify the state where the Oath was taken (see the Oath at the end of this report).
· It is said that the term BAR is an acronym for the “British Accredited Registry or British Accredited Regency”. However the members of the BAR cannot disprove or prove differently.
· During the 1600’s, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where Barristers (Attorneys/Lawyers) were ordered by the Crown to record their names with the Regency.
· The BAR only grants the attorney a card, not to be confused with a license to “practice law”.
· It is rumored that when you pass the gate and enter the barrier that surrounds the judge, the defendant and prosecution tables, you have entered the British colonial forum. Other rumors are that you have entered the deck of the Admiralty Court system. Whatever the reason, only those in that area are able to address the issue.
· The Courts in Maine display a gold-fringe flag (known as an Admiralty flag, military flag or Martial Law flag). The Constitutional Common Law Courts of our past had no gold-fringe to show its jurisdiction. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers cannot or will not explain why there is a gold-fringe on the court flags. Whatever the reason, the flag designates the jurisdiction of the court; therefore the court is no longer a Constitutional or Common Law Court.
· The Admiralty Law is the law of the sea, while the United States Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land!”
· The American BAR Association (ABA) was organized in 1878 and the U.S. Congress incorporated the Federal BAR Association (FBA) in 1954.
· The International BAR Association (IBA) includes Mexico, Canada, all of Europe and many more nations in the United Nations.
· The phrase used in early documents that identified legislators, judges, court officials and lawyers as “learned in the law”, meant knowing Constitutional Laws, Common Laws, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws.
· The consolidated Maine Superior Court (no longer Constitutional County Court which used Common Law) was established in 1930.
· The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) was established in 1936. It was considered the “Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party. The Guild was split as to its true agenda, but several of their subcommittees blatantly supported the Cuban regime and other terrorist movements in Arab Middle Eastern countries, like the PLO, Vietnam/Cambodian terrorist organizations. There is proof of collusion with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and their duel membership with both the NLG and the ACLU.
· The protections of Constitutional Laws, Common Laws, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws ended in 1959 by the Enacting Clause “Law & Equity Act”.
· In 1966, all laws were combined.

It is also important to know that Reed, Silsby, Stone and Dawson did not have any compunctions of hiding their intentions or their designs of control over man-made legislative laws.
Excerpts taken from the history of the,
“100 Years of Law and Justice”, Maine State Bar Association from 1819-1991
written by Phil Merletti.

FOREWARD
Page # i

In Alfred Z. Reed’s great study of the legal profession, he is quoted to say, “Lawyers are part of the governing mechanism of the state.” In Reed’s study, he quotes Reginald Heber Smith: “Under a government of laws, the lives, the fortunes, and the freedom of the people are wholly dependent upon the enforcement of their Constitutional Rights by an independent judiciary and by an independent bar.”

First of all, Reed was blatant and obviously not afraid to reveal the intent to be involved with the creation of law, which is not their authorization; lawyers have no business being part of the governing of the state. Smith, on the other hand, understood that lives, fortunes and freedom were Constitutional, but he did not understand that the Constitution did not give rights, but rather the Constitution protected the common law, natural, God given rights. As far as being protected by a card carrying British Accredited Barrister, he was wrong; only a person that is “learned in the law (Constitution)”, practicing law in a common law court, has the authority to lawfully represent and assist.

It is no secret that our government and court systems are adopting European Law. But, is not European Law part of the International BAR? Is it possible that between the United Nations and the International BAR Association, they are eventually streamlining all laws under one umbrella?

Reed records: 75% of U.S. Senators, 65% of the U.S. House members, and over 50% of the Maine Governors have been lawyers. Is it no surprise that our Constitution and its protections have been slowly eroded?

The 110 Year booklet discusses a study by Michael Burrage of the London School of Economics and Political Science comparing the French, American and English legal professions. Burrage mentions four goals:
1. Control of the training and admission to the legal practice.
2. Demonstrate and protect the jurisdiction of the practice of law.
3. Impose their own rules of etiquette, ethics or practice on one another (the rules of professional conduct).
4. Defend and enhance their status.

Reed responds: “One goal that is somewhat surprising in view of the conservative reputations of the legal profession in Maine is the great discussions and actions of the BAR in attempting to reform the law and legal system and the administration of justice. The history of the Maine State BAR Association clearly shows that at least that organization was far ahead of the public in seeing the need of reform from time to time.”

If you notice, not one goal mentioned the people’s needs, or the protections that the Constitution would provide and protect under the Common Law that they wanted to reform! However, the goals zeroed in on what would be the training goals and who may be brought into the fold of the legal practice. The goals also narrowed the jurisdiction and the imposition of their own rules of etiquette, ethics or practice on one another. The last goal is the most disgusting and repugnant, to defend and enhance their status, not the people!

THE INCORPORATION
Page #1

Reed writes: In 1891, An act was passed by the Maine Legislature incorporating the Maine State BAR Association “for the purpose of promoting the interests of the legal profession, and of instituting legal reforms.

He continues: The law reform committee had the duty to report to the Association, amendments to the laws as should, in their opinion, be adopted, to scrutinize proposed changes in the law, observe the practical working of the judiciary system and recommend changes in it. He continues: The committee on legal education was to prepare and report a system of legal education and for examination and admission to the BAR.

LAW & JUSTICE
(The Earliest Years)
Page#5

This section makes no reference as to how the BAR made any transition from the English controlled court to the American/Massachusetts Court, which indicates to me that there was no intention to transition. The Revolutionary war was no minor event in history and one would think that if there were a transition of loyalty of the royal court of lawyers, Reed would have mentioned it, but instead, he obviously ignored it. This is my belief, which leads me to believe that there was no transition from the English Court!

During the early years, the lawyers that were members of the BAR were not as organized as they would have liked, mostly because of the lack of established transportation and the great distance between the five counties of York, Cumberland, Lincoln, Hancock and Washington. Before Maine became an independent state, Maine was called the district of Maine and the members of the BAR belonged to the “BARR of the district of Maine”. Each county had its own BAR in 1802 (18 years before Maine became independent of Massachusetts).

THE ASSOCIATION
(Organization and Reform)
Page # 9

This section is the most revealing and the basis for the proof of the connection with the English Crown! Once again, there is no trying to hide this point from the reader and my suspicion that the BAR never transitioned from English Law to our Constitutional Common Law after the Revolutionary War.

The first annual meeting of the Maine State Bar Association was held at the Senate Chambers in Augusta in 1892. Charles F. Libby gave his presentation; his address was entitled “Legal Reforms”. The principle thrust of his speech was to advocate the merger of law and equity along the lines of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873, a forerunner of our modern rules of Court.

Reed explains that during the “Progressive Era” the court system was reformed by separating the trial court function from the Supreme Judicial Court and providing for the Superior Court in 1930.

A list of the reforms proposed by the Maine State BAR Association during the first 25 years of its existence is distressingly familiar and tends to show the public resistance to reforms proposed by the legal profession. Libby’s proposed reform of merging law and equity did not become wholly effective until 1959 and finalized in 1966. Another proposed reform, accepted today, was to allow courts to appoint clerks rather than have popular elections.

The education of the BAR members was an important part of their future direction, and to the future rights of the Maine people. The early members of the BAR realized that all members needed educational continuity, essentially to be on the same page. President of the Maine State BAR Association, Charles Libby gave his annual address entitled “Legal Education”. He stated “It is not to be forgotten that the character and quality of the education of the BAR does not concern alone its members, (it) affects as well public and private interest…..”. He then pointed out the participation of lawyers in the great issues of the history of the country, “both in shaping institutions and laws, and in molding and directing public sentiment”. Other important issues discussed at Libby’s address were: “Legal Reform and Land Transfer Reform”.

A CENTURY OF LAW & JUSTICE
(The Second Half)
Page #27

By the middle of the 20th century, Common Law was still recognized by the few. At an annual meeting in 1951, Justice Edward F. Merrill addresses those who attended. His article deemed “the most consulted paper published in the M.S.B.A.” The article in volume 40 is called “Some suggestions on taking a Case to the Law Court”. At that time he had the reputation of being the best Common Law pleader in Maine. Reed slips up and shows his disdain for Common Law when he remarks that Merrill’s article is: “now only historical interest”. Reed goes on to belittle the “bewildering process in Common Law”.

A REVOLUTION
(New Rules for Procedure)
Page # 33

Up to this point of the report, I have gleaned excerpts, comments and quotes and I have added my own comments. However, to get the gist of this section, I feel it prudent to copy word for word, so that nothing can be taken out of context.

[The greatest revolution in the history of the courts, law, and lawyers in Maine began with a speech by Justice Frances W. Sullivan at the summer meeting at the Samoset, Wednesday morning, August 29, 1956. He had been asked to speak at the beginning of the summer on Pleading and Practice. In his speech he said, “The invitation indicated that there was a rather lively interest amongst BAR in survey of our system. It is a long, long time since any comprehensive, official reprisal has been entertained.” There was indeed a lively interest in changing the Common Law pleadings and procedure. The younger members of the Maine BAR Association, had virtually no training in Common Law procedure. Most law schools did not offer a course in it. Harvard Law School, for instance, based its course in civil procedure upon the Federal Laws Procedure. Owing to this general lack of training in Common Law procedure, the Maine Law Examiner had given up conducting an integrated examination in Common Law pleading and had down graded it to (only) a question or two in the miscellaneous part of the examinations.

The institute of Judicial Administration, Justice Sullivan said, (he) had classified the states according to pleading and practice systems and found seven Common Law states – Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – four of them in New England. It was on the whole very difficult to carry on with the Common Law precedings.

Justice Sullivan further commented that an adequate study “will require at least a few years of research and consideration by many fine talents. The subjects are of sufficient importance to justify any pains exerted upon them.”

As noted before, the questions of changing the rules of civil procedure and practice surfaced at the first annual meeting of the Association in 1892.]

This section of the booklet is the most damming, unjustifiable blatant, disgusting action since the creation of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the younger members of the Maine BAR Association had virtually no training in Common Law procedure, would it not make sense to train them, instead of ignoring the Common Law? If most law schools did not offer a course in Common Law; Harvard Law School and others, for instance, could re-introduce the course. But this was not the plan to strengthen Common Law, but to let it slide away from sight slowly, but surely.

This lack of availability of courses in Common Law is by willful design! It was the original Maine BAR Association that wanted complete control, and a lawful ability to educate and train and accept whom they wanted. The removal of Common Law was well designed early in this project. English/European Law and the U.S. & Maine Constitutions cannot exist together; only one can exist in the end!

All that was needed then was to openly change and reform procedures that would bury Common Law. Not all Lawyers would agree, but they would eventually be coerced, bullied and dragged to submit or be chastised by the leaders of lawyers, law teachers and judges.

To push the rule and procedural change/reform, after the Sullivan speech, Israel Bernstein offered a motion that the Maine State BAR Association recommend and urge the Legislature to enact a statute empowering the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to prescribe rules to the several courts. The State BAR was polled and mailed a brief statement of a motion to vote by ballot on two questions.
1. Should the rules of procedure be changed?
2. Should the rules be changed by the Legislature or the Court?
Of the 656 members, 32 members voted nay and 152 voted for changing the rules and giving the court authority; is this giving the fox complete access to the chicken coop? Chief Justice Williamson announced and set the mood to shut up and except the final vote, he said, “In approaching our study, no one of us must take the view ‘I am for the federal rules’ or ‘I am for common law pleading,’. We must first find the facts before we reach conclusions.

Stop and think for one moment, of the 656 members, 32 members voted nay and 152 voted for the motion. When you do the math, just 22% of the members voted for the motion. This vote was not won by a plurality of even a majority. But yet no one contested the vote. I did the math, why couldn’t they?

Professor Richard H Field of the Harvard Law School gave a progress report to the members at the summer meeting in 1958. He said, “that the Advisory Committee had early on voted to use the federal rules as a framework with such modifications as seem advisable for Maine.” Field commented about the dread most lawyers had about the new rules as follows: “None of us, I suppose, really relishes the idea that a store of painfully acquired knowledge is to be swept away and that we are to be reduced to a position of equality with those who never acquired that knowledge.”

MORE REFORM
(The Association Reorganizes)
Page # 37

As with the last section, I will copy word for word for the sake of keeping the intent within its context.

[Never before in Maine had such a radical change taken place with respect to a fundamental body of learning, the old learning in Common Law pleading and equity pleading almost all cast away and an entirely new system replacing it.]


THE MAINE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
(Into the Second Century)
Page # 69

MSBA mission Statement

For the first time, the Maine State BAR Association developed and adopted a mission statement, which contains five purposes:
1. To promote and serve the interests of lawyers in general and members of the Association in particular.
2. To improve the functioning of the profession and to enhance public understanding of and respect for lawyers.
3. To promote the due administration of justice.
4. To bring the special skills of lawyers and the profession to bear on the concerns of society as a whole.
5. To attain the purposes of the Association by all necessary and proper means.

The writer claims: “the mission statement will no doubt guide the development of the Association as its history enters the second century (of the Association)”. The above statement strongly reflects the unwarranted importance, outrageous, selfish, self centered, arrogant, one-sided puffed up character that is displayed by most attorneys today.

CONCLUSION

It is crystal clear that the lawyers/attorneys/esquires in Maine have done more damage to the Maine people based on the fact that they have purposely and blatantly ignored and leaned 180 degrees away from the Constitutionally secured protections that were established by our founders of the U.S. and Maine Constitutions; instead man-made legislative law is substituted as “the New Law of the Land”.

Also, by virtue, they have willfully given allegiance to a foreign agency/organization by Oath, by name and by practice; the British Accredited Registry/Regency, known as the Bar.

There are three Oaths given to allow the Attorneys the right to serve the Maine public. Two of the Oaths are the same Oath given to the Legislature and Governor of Maine. The third Oath is given to the BAR, not to the state where they practice. The only Oath that is needed is the Oath to the Maine and U.S Constitutions!

Missing from this booklet is information of the fact that Maine Judges are picked from the Maine Lawyers club. Missing also is the fact that Judges need only to be “Learned in the Law”, which means: knowing Constitutional Laws, Common Laws, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws, not necessarily legislated law instituted by man! Also missing, and most important is the fact that courts (judges, prosecutors and lawyers) today use administrative law and not Constitutional Law.

Many innocent people are found guilty who are railroaded by man-made legislative law. However, many violators of the law are found guilty rightfully. This is how they have gotten away with the smoke and mirrors. The source of difficulty and confusion is in revealing the true law, because some legislative law does recognize the Constitution and Common/GOD given and Natural Laws and they are intermingled and entangled with unlawful legislated law.

The real problem is how the current court process is conducted (lack of all Constitutionally secured protected rights) and how and why violators are accused, prosecuted and found guilty. Do not be confused with the old adage because “the ends do not justify the means”.

The only answer to the dilemma of the entire court system is to return to the intentions of our founders. The courts of Maine need to return to the values and structure that was intended in the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. If the Judicial system in Maine is to be respected and revered, the Common Law Courts must be re-opened; the bench must be populated with Real Judges, Prosecutors and attorneys that are “Learned in the Law”. Current judges, prosecutors and attorneys must repeal their allegiance to themselves, the Maine State BAR Association, the American BAR Association, the International BAR Association and the British Accredited Registry/Regency.

To stop the unlawful and legal plunder of Maine people is to remove the direct influence of Legislators that have been tainted by their influence as a Lawyer. Maine Legislators that have given allegiance to the Maine State BAR must be given the right to finish their term in the Legislature. Future legislators cannot be justices, prosecutors or attorneys, nor can any judge, prosecutor or attorney run for any office or servants of the State of Maine outside of the court system. Holding a position as a legislator after holding a position in the judicial system is in direct conflict; a position that our founders feared. Holding both positions is a blatant conflict of interest. A legislator creates Law (legislative branch) and the Lawyer defines or supports the law (judicial branch). The same holds true with a lawyer that becomes a Governor, because the Governor is the executive branch, not judicial!

The Legislative branch and the judicial branch and the executive branch must always remain separated and not combined or tyranny will ensue; just like what is happening today in Augusta and Washington! A public servant can not and should not serve two masters.


For your information, the following information is found on the Maine website:

§805. Title 4: JUDICIARY
Chapter 17 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Subchapter 1: ADMISSION TO PRACTISE

§806. Attorney's oath
Upon admission to the bar, every applicant shall, in open court, take and subscribe an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and take the following oath, or, in the case of an applicant conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, such applicant shall make appropriate affirmations to the same effect: [1975, c. 66, §5 (AMD).]

"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."
SECTION HISTORY
1975, c. 66, §5 (AMD).


What a wonderful Oath! They solemnly swear: “that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court….”. Without reflection of my report, do you believe that they have done no falsehoods in their own courts? They know that they have intentionally, knowingly, willfully and purposely reformed the Constitutional Common Law courts, and that today they ignore the real court system. All of them have committed treasonous acts and are guilty of violating their entire Oath! Laws of legal plunder that convict and allow people to be falsely and groundlessly sued or fined (under legislated law) while following their Constitutional secured and protected unalienable rights, violate the People’s inherent rights and the Lawyers Oath! How does willful violation of Constitutional law allow conduct “to the best knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity”?

If lawyers know the guilt of their client, and they hide it from the court proceedings, then they ask for a lesser sentence for their client, but do not “give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented”, they have violated their Oath and the rights of those that are seeking justice. Are the lawyers subject only to protecting the lawful rights of their clients (due justice), or to the Constitutional protections for all of the People?

There was a time when legislators, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and officers of the law took their Oaths of office seriously. Today, if you were to ask any of them if they understood their Oaths, or if they have studied or even read the Maine or U.S. Constitution just once, they would answer no!

A little bit of trivia, of all three Oaths that a judge, prosecutor and attorney gives, the two Constitutional Oaths end with “So help me God"; While the attorneys Oath ends with the phrase “So help you God". We all know who the me is, but who is the you? Does the word you as the “third person” exclude the person that is taking the Oath and instead giving the Oath to you (someone else) or themselves? I am confused!/? There is something wrong with this Oath and I am wondering if it is by design. As it is, to make this Oath meaningful, this would depend on whether they are asked “Do you solemnly...?” or are “repeating the oath itself after the oath giver reads it”, or simply answering, “I do.” after it is read to them.

Lastly, is it possible for an Oath taker to function in their capacity and serve the public without knowing and understanding the Maine and U.S. Constitutions? Is there any question as to why we as a state and nation are collapsing? Do you think as we collapse as a nation, that other leading countries are going to help us from falling, or are they going to help us fall and collapse in the muck that the criminals created for us? When the collapse does happen, will the lawyers just transfer their allegiance to the concurring countries? It is easy to turn a blind eye to the future, but even a child could see what is coming, can you?