The Lawyers' Secret Oath?

[Freeborn]

Someone sent me this text, It worth the time to read it.

wfcr.110mb.com/lawyerssecretoath.pdf

[Darren Dirt]

excerpt... (from page 6/17)

THE SNARE

The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate? The bankers did it with real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal Income Taxes. These Foreign bankers simply and deceptively devised ways and means to con you into declaring yourself as a "CITIZEN" or a "RESIDENT" of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate United States is Bankrupt per agreement and public policy.

After you have been tricked into claiming you are one of their corporate United States Citizens, you are given a social security number which ties you to certain meager "benefits" and "privileges". Then, the bankers con your employer to function as an unpaid tax collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary agreements.

These slick paper agreements establish your "voluntary" indebtedness to the banker creditor. If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme because you don't like it, the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of the action which is being brought against you. You end up dealing with an agency, A THIRD PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administrating the bankruptcy to which the government agreed to per the Geneva meetings.

The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask him how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the true creditor is protected and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or produce documents.

Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the right to pledge you (your body and labor) into indebtedness (bondage/servitude).

(from earlier sections...)

The UCC is the Law Merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC.

...since the [Erie vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938], no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's guild of Great Britain, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain.

Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer coming up has to take a secret oath to support bankruptcy. Not only do the lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings.

In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT.

The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advise from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."

...What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer into the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for THE TRUE CREDITOR, THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS. THEN, HAVE THE ATTORNEY PUT INTO THE RECORD THE TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY.

The above quoted sections are the core of the theory. The rest of the 17 pages seem to be "supporting details" of the theory.


Seems similar to much of what many of us have read in our "travels", but it's directed at aspiring law students ...interesting idea...

[eye2i2hear]

danny said:

Someone sent me this text, It worth the time to read it.
wfcr.110mb.com/lawyerssecretoath.pdf

Darren said:

The UCC is the Law Merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts, and the whole mess under the UCC.

** offered definitely as filed under the "FWIW" (or from another perspective) category **:

The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with
evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain

The UCC argument is one of the most legally baseless ideas I have ever encountered, yet organizations... continue to promote it. Here are some published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy:

1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1993) (In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")
2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions")
4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues)
5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")
6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")
7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)
8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 SW2d 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).

A substantial part of the UCC argument was "developed" by Howard Freeman. Freeman contended that some super secret treaty back in 1930 put this and other countries around the world in "bankruptcy" with the "international bankers" being the "creditor/rulers." Once these banker/rulers were ensconced in power, they needed some way to "toss out the old law" based upon the common law, and erect commercial law as the law which regulated and controlled everything. Roosevelt and his fellow conspirators then set to work and developed a plan to achieve the destruction of the "common law" and the erection of commercial law. This was accomplished by the decision in the Erie Railroad case in 1938. According to this theory, Erie RR banished the common law, leaving in its place only commercial law via the UCC. Freeman also alleged that lawyers were informed of this "takeover" by the "international bankers" and that they were required to take a secret oath to not tell the American people about the takeover. Of course, as the direct result of this change in the law from common law to commercial law, no court could ever cite a case decided prior to 1938. (See more complete explanation of this concept here).

But there are the tremendous flaws in this argument. I do not challenge the fact that big international bankers are economically powerful and that such power enables them to secure favorable legislation. However I do disagree with the "secret treaty" contention. Back in the 1930s and indeed all the way up to about 1946, all treaties adopted by the United States were published in the U.S. Statutes at Large. As a student of treaties, I looked for this secret treaty and could not find it and I had access to complete sets of all books containing treaties, especially those in the Library of Congress in DC. The major premise of this argument is this contention regarding the secret treaty, which even the proponents of the argument cannot produce. Their argument, "I cannot produce this secret treaty, but believe me anyway," simply is unacceptable to me as I want proof.

The advocates of this argument also contend that the Erie RR case was the one which banished the common law and erected commercial law in its place. The problem with this contention is that Erie RR does not stand for this proposition. This was a personal injury case; Thompkins was injured while walking along some railroad tracks as a train passed. Something sticking out of the train hit Thompkins and injured him, hence his suit for damages. Please read this case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which stands for the proposition that federal courts must follow the common law of the state where the injury occurred. How this case is alleged to declare the exact opposite escapes me, but in any event, Erie RR does not support the contention of the UCC advocates.

To prove that Erie RR changed the law, it is alleged that no court can cite a case decided prior to 1938. This is perhaps the simplest contention to disprove, achieved just by reading cases (which apparently the UCC activists do not do). All my life I have read cases which cited very old cases and I have never seen such a sharp demarcation where the courts did cite pre-1938 cases before 1938 and then ceased afterwards. Here are just a few post-1938 cases which cite pre-1938 cases, the constitution, the Federalist Papers and lots of other old authority:

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Printz and Mack v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997)

When you scan these cases, please note the parentheses like "(1997)" above for Richard Mack's case. This denotes the year any particular case was decided. You can easily see that these recent cases do in fact cites cases decided as far back as 1798. The contention that pre-1938 cases are not cited is nothing but lunacy, believed by folks like Dave DeReimer, a "redemption process" advocate.

This argument also contends that the States of this nation were placed in "bankruptcy" via the "secret treaty." If this were true, why did the Supreme Court decide in 1936 that states and their subdivisions could not bankrupt? See Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936).

Finally, I must inform you that neither I nor any other lawyer I know has ever taken the "secret oath" as alleged by this argument. When I was sworn in as an Alabama lawyer in September, 1975, it was on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court down in Montgomery in front of God, my parents and everybody else. I swore to uphold and protect the United States and Alabama Constitutions. Nothing in that oath could remotely be the alleged "secret oath." I have also been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits; I did not take the "secret oath" when I was admitted to practice before these courts, nor when I was admitted to practice before several U.S. district courts. I have not taken any other oath and I know that the only oath most other lawyers have taken is the same. But, I do not doubt that some lawyers are members of other secret societies who may have taken oaths of which I am unaware.

My advice is that if you hear anyone making some argument about the UCC, run away as fast as you can. The argument is crazy.

--Destroyed Arguments/The UCC Argument, by Larry Becraft, the attorney who represented Lloyd Long in a winning verdict in a jury trial in a Tennessee case for "willfull failure to file" Federal income taxes. [linx within the quote, from the Becraft website --2i2]

[Darren Dirt]

Wow, I was guessing it would be at least 2 or 3 days before someone quoted the well-intentioned-but-still-a-"lawyer" Larry Becraft...

Just remember who/what he is a loyal "officer" of...

(note: I am not saying Mr. Becraft is right or wrong in his response to the "UCC" claims, I am just saying that as clear-thinking and honest as he may be -- and compared to his colleagues he most certainly is -- because of his current and ongoing professional status, he is still not going to be as impartial as, say, someone whose integrity resulted in them "leaving the bar" upon realizing their loyalty to IT* will at some time, or even often, usurp any they owed to a client...)



*best example:
"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..."

*cough* absent corpus delicti in "state v. ---" cases *cough*