Why People Should Never Hire Attorneys

The first thing we should do, is kill all the lawyers.  Shakespeare's Henry VI

We have all heard the attorneys' maxim about how those who represent themselves have fools for attorney. After reading this article, the reader might just come away with the maxim in law, "He who hires an attorney is a fool." The maxim that attorneys use does still apply, because as a people in your court of record, you are not representing yourself. You are yourself, the sovereign in the court. One of the ways that the inferior equity or admiralty courts will attempt, and commonly succeed, in fooling people back into their jurisdiction is to get a people to consent to the courts permission to represent himself. The court is getting the people to act as an attorney which is an officer of the inferior equity or admiralty court.

The best way to get the attorney's perspective is to read Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 7. This legal encyclopedia reveals exactly where the attorney's first loyalties lie. Section 4 of CJS states title Attorney and Client

His first duty is to the court and the public, and wherever his duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

But one needs to know exactly what the relationship between the attorney and client is before making a decision to hire an attorney. According to section 7 of the CJS the client is a ward of the court.

Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

So what is a "ward".

Wards of the court - infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. (Davis committe v. Loney , 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d. 189, 190)

There is that word "persons" again. As the sovereign in the room, the people does not need permission to hold his own court and that is exactly what you would be doing if you file an action or counterclaim against another. You are the people sovereign holding your own court. The subservient government provides the building, the bailiff, the clerk and the rest of the staff. That is why we hire them.

You are appearing in court in propria persona or in your own proper person.

In propria persona In one's own proper person. It was formerly ruled in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by an attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction.

The final reason to not hire an attorney or to say you are "representing yourself" or are "pro se" is the rules that apply to those who are not represented are the rules of his domicile. So the only rules that apply are the rules you decide in your own house. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17.b.

As an example of the lack of knowledge of law is a case for which I hired an attorney. I was sued by a credit card company after I decided it got its money when the politicians, who are under the control of the bankers, gave the bankers a "bailout". In the very first meeting with this attorney he stated, "You know you are eventually going to have to pay this, correct?" Once I learned about common law and sovereignty, I fired the attorney and handled my business myself and my court of record dismissed the case against me in the inferior court when neither the inferior court nor the opposing attorney could prove they had jurisdiction over me.

Another example is a case that is ongoing now, so I will not reveal the specific case. However, in this case, the claimant accused a police officer of making a false statement on a citation. His action stated the officer, "wrote a falsified Notice of Criminal Trespass signing his name to it." The action then went on to detail specifically how the officer made this false statement.

It also accused the police chief of lying during a conversation between the claimant and the police chief about a state statute. (The case has since the writing of this article been concluded in the claimant's favor.)

The claimant recently got a response from the attorney who is representing the town for whom the police officers work and the police officers. The response did not take into account that the Law of the Case exhibit specifically called for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the rules of court. The response did not mention the accusations made against each of the officers. It simply attempted to claim that the officers have "government immunity". It also showed the attorney's lack of knowledge regarding law, when he stated, "The Defendants herein, generally deny, in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the material allegations of Plaintiff's Original Petition, which is styled Claim for Trespass and Trespass on the case.

There are two problems with this argument. The attorney showed his lack of knowledge in law. Trespass in law is an injury involving violence or the threat of violence. Cops carry guns with them so no matter what they do, when they are detaining a people against his will, they are committing a trespass. Trespass on the case is an injury that does not involve violence or the threat of violence. In this case, it is the damage to the plaintiff's reputation by having a document that falsely accuses him of "Criminal Trespass" even though he had not committed the act according to their own statutes.

Attorneys call themselves "attorneys at law" when they know little to nothing about law and have most of their training in equity or statutes. This was even a problem in old England in the 1750's when William Blackstone made his commentaries on Law in England. One of the things he commented on was the fact that two thirds of Europe operated under common law, but not one single law school was teaching common law at the time and were instead teaching Napoleonic civil law, or statutory law, instead, because it was preferred by government for controlling people.

The second problem with this argument is any immunity that government agents may have, even under the statutory system, does not apply when they do not abide by those statutes. In other words, government agents' protection of immunity only applies when they abide by statutory "law". It does not apply when they violate that "law". So even under their system of statutes, the officers are not protected. Of course, under common law it becomes a moot issue, since statutes do not apply in common law.

There is another problem that the attorney failed to take note of. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were declared to be the rules of court for this case by the plaintiff. Rule 8(b)(2) states,

Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.

The next rule does allow for a general denial of all allegations in Rule 8(b)(3)

General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

The problem with a general denial is the officer who wrote the citation cannot dispute that he was at a different location than the citation claims and the conversation with the police chief was recorded with his knowledge.

Attorneys commonly laugh at people for their incompetence while commonly displaying theirs. However, the biggest reason people should never hire an attorney is doing so is consent to the inferior court's jurisdiction. Why would a people want to submit himself to the jurisdiction of a court that has none?

The most important question one must ask himself is, "Am I of unsound mind requiring a guardian appointed to me by the court?" The fact that you read to the end of this article might suggest you are not.

Defend Freedom™
Doc T Doc T's picture
Great information and thanks

Great information and thanks for explaining it out...These things get clearer and clearer and I'm starting to see how they try to play games, hoping nobody is smart enough to catch it.  As I taught my kids..."Words Matter and the placement of them."

Thanks again for the lesson in Common Law and Jurisdiction and how they play the games...

You may as well say that

You may as well say that people should never engage a doctor to perform surgery.  Yes, surgeons make mistakes, or take on cases beyond their depth, but they're expected and trained to do considerably better than amateurs.  Same with lawyers.  Why do you suppose they went to law school?

Common law court proceedings

I am set to be in court on the 20th of December, for a theft charge wherein I never left the store with the product, only into the lawn and garden center of my local Wal Mart. Where I was at once approached by an individual with a badge hanging from his neck asking me to come with him please. long story short, I was jailed of to jail and now an facing charges for theft. I feel I need an attorney due to my lack of knowledge in court proceedings. So I called one and informed him I wanted to make the court prove jurisdiction, and have my case heard in common law court. He told me not no, but he'll no, that there was no such thing.

I know however there is. Problem is he is the best lawyer in town, and it is my freedom at play here. If I hire him which I have meeting with him in morning, what then? He may or may not get the charges dismissed. More importantly however I feel that my rights are important and none will fight for then as I myself will. Doing so though could get me in hot water should i fail in an aspect of doing so.

So please someone have a heart and explain to me what it is that I should do.

I will forever be in gratitude towards you.


M. R. Hamilton M. R. Hamilton's picture
Please do not post question not related to a topic

Post this question in the appropriate forum to get an answer. Also read the new user topic.

M. R. Hamilton
No Lawyer? No Problem?

AmericanQueen AmericanQueen's picture
There's "at law", then there

There's "at law", then there's "in law". A man who knows proper law is "in law".

Attorneys cannot do equity because they cannot come with clean hands.


"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince people they've been fooled." ~ Mark Twain

Other options

You can go rogue like this guy and film the corrupt! www.projectveritas.org

Log in or register to post comments