17 posts / 0 new
Last post
B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture

I think everyone should have a copy of these!

The State Bar is an Unconstitutional Monopoly

Another File: 
B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
No License Needed To Practice Law

Supreme Court Cases Supporting No License Needed To Practice Law

I uploaded this one specifically because of the harassment I received from the magistrate in my case who INSISTED I have representation of a lawyer or attorney. Even if I submitted to their jurisdiction flat out I could still argue with these Supreme Court rulings.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Brian, you are a saint

We can use 5 and 9 directly in Kassidy's case. These are awesome!!!!!! You have been a huge help. Naturally, we will want to vet these. I've seen cites that were fake, so we will have to go to one of the sites that post case law o line and search for the phrases to assure they are in the opinions. Good job Brian .

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
I figured out WHY you called me a saint . . . but

When I was writing the POSTS the other day about not knowing what you were talking about: me being some saint; I didn't see the post that you were talking about. Okay . . . you can delete these posts that I made about not knowing what you were talking about.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
What evidence do you have

What evidence do you have that they have not filed your counterclaim? Why don't you send them an affidavit to file as well.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
Send them an Affidavit?

Isn't it you that said just to wait? And what Affidavit are you referring to? You also may not realize that I have no idea of the procedures or forms to fill out or when to do so.

As far as evidence as to whether they served the bundle of 20 counterclaims all I know is on the 5th of January my ex public defender I met with in the court and he received his. I wrote all that the other day in another thread.

I just came back from the Plymouth District Court because my COLOR Red came up. While I was there I spoke with a female clerk magistrate and she informed me (rather nicely I might add) that the paperwork has been sent up to Boston. I had asked for my certified copy that I hadn't received the other day and she said that Boston is handling the paperwork. I don't know if it's a runaround or not.

But what is that your refer to in an AFFIDAVIT?

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
You have gotten someone's attention

Ok, good. If the public defender got his, ask him to give you the case number. All you need is the case number.

Your paperwork should have been sent to Boston, because the state is the highest authority named in the case. The lower level does not know how to respond, so they lower level flunkies are hoping the higher level flunkies will know what to do. They won't either.

The affidavit is was suggesting is an affidavit stating the fact that you filed an action with the court clerk, what the action was for, and the clerk's refusal to provide a certified copy of the action. Send it to the clerk by certified mail, so you have evidence of it's delivery and include in the affidavit the certified mail number. The cover letter needs to instructions the clerk to file it and send the 2nd copy included in the envelope to you certified for evidence in a case.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
Guide to Filing a Civil Action in Massachusetts

Filling out any APPLICATION is designed to SUBJECT me to their jurisdiction. This is the exact thing I was complaining about last week. Every word in every sentence in every document presented by any government agency is in VIOLATION to MY JURISDICTION.

I've attached the GUIDE so you can see for yourself. The only way I can do this is with wording that eliminates their wording. Otherwise, what's the point if it only continues to have THEIR boot on my neck?

IF the Affidavit you are suggesting Michael has an example I can see that shows how to do this without stepping into their traps I'd like to see it please.

I've also added my comments onto their GUIDE in the second document uploaded here. Again, this is all CONTRACTING with them. I do not want to contract with them. I don't even want to SEE them. But, I realize I might be only NOT standing under something here; and THAT is my point. I'm tired of understanding their crap.

Judges do not enforce statutes and codes

These need to be vetted which I am doing right now.  This sums up what we are going through and why they need our consent.  "Executive administrators, in their private person with no immunity for their non judicial functions enforce statutes and codes."  If these cases are true we all need to add this to the law of the case and trespass on the case.  Can they be amended after filing?  There are more great cases if they are true where I got these that will shut down the corporation but I am starting with these:


THAT The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance [and deceptive practices in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956), the general misconception among the public being that any exercise of state regulatory or police power bearing the appearance of law is in fact in agreement with the law of the land, and is therefore legitimate in its operation as imposed. A statute is not a "law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261) these being defined by Black's Law Dictionary 5th as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial evidence of law, a facade, represented by 'public policy,' being color-able, or 'color of law,' further being counterfeited, feigned, or Defacto, as further defined thereby. Judges do not enforce statutes and codes. Executive Administrators, in their private person with no Immunity for their non judicial functions enforce statutes and codes. (FRC vs. GE 281 U.S. 464; Keller vs. PE 261 U.S. 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

The attached case should be read and incorporated against all judges in all our cases.  He is using their system imagine using common law to with these arguments.


B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture



B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture

I want to print this thing out because I didn't have this the other day. I updated the first post I made by adding the BAR Card document but I think this new one should be printed out:


BAR = British Accreditation Regency
Black's Law (4th Edition):
REGENCY. Rule; government; kingship. The man or body of men intrusted (sic) with the vicarious government of a kingdom during the minority, absence, insanity, or other disability of the king.
REGENT. A governor or ruler. One who vicariously administers the government of a kingdom, in the name of the king, during the latter's minority or other disability.
Source: USA The

The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)
The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:
• Only authorizes, to practice law in courts as a member of the state judicial branch of government.
[Correction: membership is to a private corporation listed on Dun and Bradstreet, for example -  JUDICIARY/SUPREME COURTS OF THE STATE OF OHIO.]
• Can only represent wards of the court, infants, and persons of unsound mind. (See CORPUS
A "CERTIFICATE" is not a license to practice law as an occupation, nor to do business as a law firm!

The state BAR card is not a license. It is a union dues card.
The BAR is a professional association.
• Like the actors union, painters union, etc.
• No other association, even doctors, issue their own license. All are issued by the STATE OF.
The BAR is a non-governmental private association.
The State BAR is;
• An unconstitutional monopoly
• An illegal and criminal enterprise
• Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the U.S Constitution.

There is no power or authority for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure governments as agents of a foreign entity. It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of America.

The American BAR [British Accreditation Registry] is an offshoot from London Lawyers' Guild and was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind. [1] In 1909 they incorporated this traitorous group in the state of Illinois and had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, could practice law and hold all the key positions in law enforcement and the making of laws. At that time, Illinois became an outlaw state, and for all practical  purposes, they seceded from the United States of America.

The BAR association then sent organizers to all the other states and explained to the lawyers there how much more profitable and secure it would be for them, as lawyers, to join this union and be protected by its bylaws and cannons. They issued to the lawyers in each state a charter from the Illinois organization. California joined in 1927 and a few reluctant states and their lawyers waited until the 1930's to join when the treasonous Act became de facto and the citizens became captives. [2]

Under this system, the lawyers could guarantee prejudged decisions for the privileged class against the lower class. This was all made possible by the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION to favor codes and unlawfully substitute them in place of Constitutional Laws. The Constitution was written in plain English and the Statutes passed by Congress were also in plain English, with the intent of Congress how each law should be used and not the opinions of various Judges as the codes list. Any normal person can read the Constitution and Statutes and understand them without any trouble.

The public in California was shocked to learn that the state government has no control or jurisdiction over the BAR Association or its members. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold BAR examinations. They do not issue state licenses to lawyers. The BAR Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them so-called  licenses but keeps the fees for themselves. The BAR is the only one that can punish or disbar a lawyer.

They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the STATE. Only the BAR Association, or their designated committees, can remove any of these lawyers from  public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated  committee of the BAR. On August 21, 1984, Rose Bird, Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court,  another of the BAR Associations Judicial Committees, stated in essence, that the BAR should determine the  legality of all initiatives before they were allowed to go on the ballot.

This is contrary to both State and Federal Constitutions, as well as the laws of this Nation instituted By and For the People as a Sovereign UNITY of Independent States of We The People, not a fraudulent Corporate entity of Lawyers. This is a tremendous amount of power for a private union that is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois to hold over the Citizens of California or any other state. [3] The only recourse is through this initiative process and vote by the people.

After the Founding Fathers had formed the Constitution, outlining the laws as to the way our government was to be run, Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, "This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws and run a government as well as or better than royalty and the blue bloods of Europe." The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts of America.

Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, nowhere is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation. Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people. By right and by law they have no power, authority or jurisdiction, and must be put out of business by the good Citizens of America in their fight for freedom.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in this union a republican form of government. Any other form of government is forbidden! No public officer or branch of government can be limited to a ruling class of any kind, or the states become aristocracies and not Republics. Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st class citizens, where many public offices and branches of government are open to lawyers  only. All other people are limited to only two branches of government and to only certain offices in those two branches of government, making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens.

When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution requires, (Article IV, Section 4), we the people, will never rule against themselves. In these unconstitutional foreign tribunals "courts" [4] (hoodlum centers), men in black dresses, that are unconstitutional robes of nobility. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the Black Robe Cult (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).

The legislative branch of government does not have the Constitutional power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of orders to the people, as a "fiction court" or a "court/corporation for profit and gain" cannot reach parity with a lawful man. Only Presidents and Governors have the Constitutional power to grant pardons, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting pardons with "immunity from prosecution."

Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc. This is an unconstitutional "lawyer system"; only hearsay substitutes (lawyers), not under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though only sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is "Bill of Attainder," not permitted under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sections 9 and 10).

The U.S. Constitution does not give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other hearsay substitute. The 6th Amendment is very specific, that the accused only has the right to the assistance of counsel and this assistance of counsel can be anyone the accused chooses without limitation.

Lawyers and lawyer-judges: Created unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" and "hearings" to have eternal extortionistic litigations, which is BARRATRY and also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, as this places defendants in double jeopardy a hundred times over. Defendants only have a right to trial, not trials. When a criminal is freed on a technicality, he is freed because of a fix and a pay-off, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent by a jury not by any technicality.

Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, all lawyer-judges have to disqualify themselves, as there cannot be a constitutional trial, and also there would be a violation of the conflicts of interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and checks and balances, because 'officers of the court' are on both sides of the bench.

These same lawyer-judges are awarding or approving lawyer fees, directly and indirectly, amounting to billion of dollars, all in violation of conflict of interest laws. As long as there are lawyers, there will never be any law, Constitution or justice. There will only be mob rule, rule by a mob of lawyers. Case law is unconstitutional: as case law is enacted by the judicial branch of government. When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is tampering with the jury. He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either "Yes" or "No." The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, and rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he "rules" certain evidence and the truth  to be inadmissible. This makes the trial and transcript fixed and rigged, because the jury does not  hear the real truth and all the facts. Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.

All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the Unconstitutional title of  nobility (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), as officers of the court. Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government, but non-lawyer citizens are limited to only two of the three branches of government.  Lawyers, as 1st class citizens, can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government. Lawyers, as officers of the court, in the Judicial Branch, are unconstitutionally in two branches of government at the same time whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws. District attorneys and  STATE attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries from the people, where the people are denied access to the Grand Juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges.

The U.S. Constitution, being the supreme fundamental law, is not and cannot be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper and we would have millions of interpretations (unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges and public servants are sworn to support the U.S. Constitution, not interpret it.

Under international orders: all lawyers, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are exactly the same. All lawyers have to file the same motions and follow the same procedures in using the same Unconstitutional "lawyer system". [5]  In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone's will and estate. When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for each child and, at times, the lawyer fees exceed the total amount of the estate.

An outrageous amount of tax money is directly and indirectly stolen by lawyers. Money that is budgeted to County/City/Borough Boards, School Boards and other local and federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are tricked and forced into eternal extortionistic litigation.

In the state of Alaska and Hawaii, the BAR Association has mandated that all judges are to be licensed to  practice law (e.g. Alaska Constitution, Article IV, Section 4). This license requirement is not found in any other state of the Union. As all licenses to practice law in the state of Alaska and Hawaii are issued by a judge, what judge is qualified to issue a license to practice law to another judge? As only members of the Bar may be  licensed to practice law (e.g. A.S. 08.08.020), Alaska and Hawaii judges are required to be members of the BAR and as such, they are prejudiced to do the business of the BAR.  If a judge is required to be a member of the BAR, who disqualifies the judge from office if that judge does not pay the dues or violates the rules of the BAR? Every state in the Union (with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii) "prohibits" judges from holding licenses to practice law.


References added by the AntiCorruption
[1] From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD
"The scheme also provided for the control of the courts via the 1913 creation of the American Bar Association, whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association, which was the creation of Rothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the practice of law, in that the only ones  permitted to practice before the courts were those who were educated under their brand of law, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man many jurisdictional protections from the bankers’ legislation." (See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 58. Available from

[2] From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD
"Contract law is above the Constitution and under the jurisdiction of Equity/Admiralty courts, so the governments began to contract with everyone. The 1930s saw federal legislation providing for the registration of babies through applications for birth certificates. Government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications for certificates of title and for  registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts were created secretly by adhesion contracts, giving benefits either present or future and as a result, each of the people blindly walked into the trap of United States democracy and its jurisdiction by the signing of contracts,  thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States and collateral for the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc." (See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 74. Available from

[3] From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD
"In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted in most of the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive adhesion contracts. Debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform  system of law had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the  mid-1960s." (See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 62. Available from

[4] From Judge Dale, a retired Federal Judge:
"Why is the BAR Guild so hell-bent on keeping everything on the private side? Because the public side invokes Constitutional issues and nothing they do can withstand a Constitutional challenge. The organic Constitution still exists in its original glory and authority and is buried in the US Printing Office. All amendments since 1871 do not exist. Why? It was the "corporate mission statement" for the District of Columbia that was written in 1871 to resemble the organic Constitution. Is it that corporate mission statement that has been amended since 1871 and chopped up as of late." (See Lawfully Yours, page 17. Available as a free download on

[5] From Who is Running America
"The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states.
(See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business  law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction." (See Who is Running America, page 13. Available as a free download on

I've also added a BONUS document. It is the paper I found that led me to the BAR Card.

File Attachments: 
Hi, I had 2 questions, one,

Hi, I had 2 questions, one, is Marshall Benson out? And two, where can I find the paperwork for a successful foreclosure case, I thought I saw it somewhere(maybe involving the name Tadlock or something similar, but cannot find it). Thanks in advance.

Great post!

I will be using this in my case.  Thanks! 

I believe once vetted we can all add the unlawful monopoly BAR corporation as a trespass against the case.  Can we add extra trespass to our case at anytime after counterclaims have been filed?  You want to see some rats scurry this will do it.  In essence a rogue corporation has usurped the judicial system using a monopoly(their is a law that I will post on monopolies we can use)  to steal, kill, and imprison the people all under color of law.  If this is not a trespass nothing is.  Whenever these frauds say anything we need to put them in their place confidently using the info in your post.  Also these frauds take an oath to uphold the constitution and not to overthrow the government of the usa in the their own statutes.  I will post this as well.


B.W. Cornwell B.W. Cornwell's picture
The Temples Of Baal.rtf

Add this to your train of thought. Religious content. You may or may not believe, but you can bet your bippy that THEY do. It's just in what they belief that SCREWS you.

File Attachments: 


I realize this is Cornwell's fault and not yours, but the purported quotations in his contribution attributed to Sims v. Ahrens (1925) 167 Ark 557, 271 SW 720, and to Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners (1957) 353 US 232, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, 77 S.Ct 752, 64 ALR2d 288, are bogus.  Sims never mentions the practice of law, as a common occupation or anything else.  Schware  deals with the actual process of admission to the practice (which the Court described only once as "licensing") supervised by the State Supreme Court and handled by a Board of Bar Examiners; it leave no doubt that this continues to be the process by which applicants can enter the profession - but the standards, while set high, must be reasonable.

A more accurate statement makes clear that the screening process used for admission to the legal profession serves to protect the public and the justice system is set out in In the Matter of the Co-operative Law Company (1910) 198 NY 479 at 483, 92 NE 15 at 16, 23 LRA, n.s. 55, 139 Am.St.Rep 839: "The practice of law is not a business open to all, but a personal right, limited to few persons of good moral character, with special qualifications ascertained and certified after a long course of study, both general and professional, and a thorough examination by a state board appointed for the purpose. The right to practice law is in the nature of a franchise from the state conferred only for merit. It cannot be assigned or inherited but must be earned by hard study and good conduct.  It is attested by a certificate of the [State] Supreme Court and is protected by registration. No one can practice law unless he has taken an oath of office and has become an officer of the court, subject to its discipline, liable to punishment for contempt in violating his duties as such, and to suspension and removal.  It is not a lawful business except for member of the bar who have complied with all the condition required by statute and the rules of the courts."

By the same token, "BAR" is not "British Accrediting Registry" nor any other acronym, it is simply the word used for the legal fraternity or profession, acquired from the medieval court's plank of wood at which authorized advocates were allowed to appear.  It is not written as if it were an acronym in court decisions on either side of the Atlantic.  There is no evidence that a "British Accrediting Registry" ever existed on either side of the Atlantic.

Contrary to the claim quoted from "Melvin Stamper" (of whom I can find out nothing), the American Bar Association was begun in 1878, not 1913, and I cannot find any evidence of a "European International Bar Association" then or ever.

M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
I put little credence into the BAR argument

Well, I put little credence into the BAR argument. However, what I do put a lot of credence into is the difference in people and person. A people cannot have any of his rights infringed by any statute of government. Persons are all you will find listed in a statute and it does not apply to people. So whatever restrictions that you may think might apply to people for "practicing law", do not apply to people.

I would also point out that attorneys are not taught law. They are taught numerous things other than law, but law in these united states refers to the common law. The one issue you will never be able to overcome because we have judges back us up all the time, especially federal judges who tend to be fsar more honorable than state district judges. I guess all of those judges must be wrong.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

I have seen 12. "The practice

just noticed somebody addressed the "license" issue already, so I'm deleting the post

Log in or register to post comments