Not only that, but if you allow anyone to “represent you”, instead of being “the belligerent claimant in person” (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c.), you become a “ward of the court”. Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent! Clients are called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. See a copy of “Regarding Lawyer Discipline & Other Rules”, as well as Canons 1 through 9.
Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:
“The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client and wherever the 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.” (emphasis mine)
Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52
“Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”
[/features_box_grey]
And also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV)
“You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to … How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fiction claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.
“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant [Jesus style], nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person…once he testifies to part, he has waived his…he must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”
US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).
The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby: We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went into the FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan.
The judge asked four times consecutively, “Are you sure you don’t want a court appointed attorney???”
Her only reply was “That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 certifiable knowledge of the law and that she will be representing the name on the docket of the court.”
The Attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young Mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a Momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trial of the State where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She asked him these questions:
1. State your name.
2. What’s your badge number?
3. What’s your rank?
4. Who do you work for?
5. How do you get paid?
6. Is that in the form of a bank check, direct deposit?
7. Would that be considered commerce?
8. When you were hired, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America?
Right about there is where the State’s case started breaking down, because the cop said, “I took an oath but I don’t know if it was for America.” – busted!!! –The judge stepped in and said “every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!?” and “This is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other I’ve ever seen. I’m going to order that the State release the child back to the mother immediately.” Co-incidentally, the Attorney for the State approached me and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at my web site and he handed me a hardbound copy of “Constitutional Law” from his personal library.
The judge’s personal assistant found the Mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge says goes. She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that this is the first time in the court’s history that any one has ever proven that the STATE has no claim, Especially a 22-year old single mom.
I guran-freakin-tee that a lawyer won’t do that for you!
So fire him and move on to the next section!