Attorneys versus Lawyers; Statutes (Acts) versus Laws

Attorneys versus Lawyers; Statutes (Acts) versus Laws

A Brief History of British and American Law

by John-Henry Hill, M.D.

Begun: April 21, 2013

Work-in-progress (as of July 10, 2014)

 “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” Thomas Paine

“We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with matches.” – Will Rogers

“He, who would be deceived, let him.”  – ancient Roman maxim of law  

Note: For some reason this web site will NOT allow me to paste the entirety of this essay on this page. Therefore, I have posted a small portion of it here, followed by a LINK to the FULL VERSION (as a 173 page Microsoft WORD .doc file) uploaded into the Media Library.

LINK to the FULL VERSION: Attorneys_versus_Lawyers___Statutes_versus_Laws

Today in America (or Britain or most of the former colonies of Britain) an attorney is an officer of the British Crown (a private corporation), with certification and license from the British Accredited Registry (BAR) of the British Crown, who practices private, administrative “law” under British copyright. This private, administrative law is British Admiralty Law transmuted into the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). With the exception of capital crimes (such as murder), the attorney today does NOT practice in a judicial court but rather practices in a private, commercial, administrative court. Further, this private administrative court enforces private corporate rules called “acts” or “statutes” for a private, foreign, municipal corporation called the “United States” domiciled in Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.) and operating in bankruptcy and under a “state of emergency” under martial law from 1933 to the present time. You are skeptical, dear reader? Please, read on. The attorney is an “attorney-at-law”; NOT an “attorney-of-law” or, more correctly, “attorney-in-law”. Words in law are precise; and the phrase “attorney-at-law” was carefully selected. The “attorney-at-law” practices AT the threshold of the law, but he does NOT cross the threshold into a true judicial court of law. Conversely, a lawyer practices IN a true “court of record” under Common Law, for which no license is required.


The “Hidden” Truth  – or Not-so-hidden Truth, if you bother to look for it.

Unbeknownst to almost all attorneys and inferior court judges, one is not required to possess a license to practice law in a court of law. In early American history anyone could practice law and call himself a “lawyer”. For the practical purpose of learning law, one usually apprenticed with another lawyer in a practice called “reading the law”. Once he felt sufficiently knowledgeable, the newly-minted lawyer could then solicit clients and perform services in a court of law under Common Law. No BAR exam was required; no membership in any BAR association was needed; and no licensing by the state was necessary. Why has that situation changed? Or has it? The short answer is that attorneys in America function under private, commercial law under copyrighted British Commercial Law (Admiralty Law) under the authority of the corporation known as the “Crown of England” or “the British Crown”. The American Bar Association (ABA) and all state BAR associations are sub-corporations operating under the British BAR (British Accredited Registry) owned by the British Crown corporation. Under commercial law, every private corporation has the right to issue rules of conduct (often called “policies” or “codes of conduct”) for its members, who are subject to those rules and the penalties for infractions. And since, under commercial law, no man can be forced to contract against his will, all would-be attorneys must voluntarily contract with their BAR association operating under the British Crown corporation. Further, the courts in which lawyers today practice are not what a lawyer might assume. It is very important to appreciate the fact that District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are NOT the same as United States District Courts (“USDC). The District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) are constitutional judicial courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The United States District Courts (“USDC”) are territorial tribunals that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Territory Clause); OR legislative (administrative) courts, that originate in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Paul Andrew Mitchell has written extensively on the distinctions between USDC and DCUS courts. In his OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson, Mitchell cited numerous court federal and state cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This same author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; begin reading at section “7(e)”.  The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.  For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. [Source: ] Finally, what do the USDC courts deal in? The answer is solely EQUITY LAW (Maritime-Admiralty Law) administered by legislative tribunals of the corporate United States operating in a state of bankruptcy – a fact which many, if not most, attorneys are unaware. When a man appears in court for having violated a statute, he is appearing as a DEBTOR in a court of equity. And attorneys, as Officers of the Court, have sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, 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 (if, indeed, many of them are even aware or know). 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 advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.” NOTES: 1938 – Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins made contracts [contract law or UCC-Admiralty Law; NOT the Common Law and the Constitution] the rule in the courts – Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law. The Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law, that is, the Common Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. This overturned a standing decision (Swift v.Tyson, 1840) of over one hundred years. In Swift v.Tyson (1840) the Supreme Court ruled that the courts would judge the case on Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. Since the Erie Railroad vs. Tompkins 1938 ruling, the federal courts do NOT deal in the Common Law, but rather Equity Law (Commercial Law), Further, after the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins ruling, NO other law (or Supreme Court ruling) prior to 1938 can be cited in cases in court – which is why, should a defendant attempt to cite the Constitution or any court rulings issued prior to 1938, the judge will often tell the defendant to “Sit down and shut up!” The judge is presiding over the defendant in an Equity court, which deals ONLY with disputes between debtors and a creditors. Therefore, your rights under the Common Law and the Constitution do NOT apply!


Evolution of Lawyers Into Attorneys — or should it be “Devolution”?

As any informed attorney will admit, he has a duty to the court over and above any duty to his client. Indeed, the word “attorney” is far from synonymous with “lawyer”. A “lawyer” is one who practices law in a true court of law (judicial court); an “attorney” is one who transfers ownership of property in a court of equity (administrative court). In fact, “attorney” is derived from the words in Old Frenchatourner” and late Middle English “attorn” meaning “to turn over to”, “to agree to remain as a tenant of property after the transfer of its ownership”, “to transfer allegiance or do homage to a new lord”. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States by John Bouvier. Published 1856. Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company) Attornment of estates was the “agreement of the tenant to the grant of the seignory, or of a rent, or the agreement of the donee in tail, or tenant for life, or years, to a grant of a reversion or of a remainder made to another. Co. Litt. 309; Touchs. 253. Attornments are rendered unnecessary, even in England, by virtue of sundry statutes, and they are abolished by statute in the United States. 4 Kent, Com. 479; 1 Hill. Ab. 128, 9. Vide 3 Vin. Ab. 317; 1 Vern. 330, n.; Saund. 234, n. 4; Roll. Ab. h.t.; Nelson’s Ab. h.t.; Com. Dig. h.t. (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.)

LINK to the FULL VERSION: Attorneys_versus_Lawyers___Statutes_versus_Laws


%d bloggers like this: