A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

[palani]

There could be some truth that if the occupation of law doesn't drive you to drink it certainly will drive you to the unemployment line.


http://www.edrivera.com/

I crossed the Bar when I started telling the truth about law and government in California. Telling the truth about law and government got me disbarred. Learning the truth about the law and government can get you free.

[palani]

The proof the Articles of Confederation still support the original government, the Confederacy called the United States of America, is found in the first Clause of the first Section of the first Article of the Constitution. The letter of the law, which tells us both the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Constitution of the United States continue to be viable Organic Laws of the United States of America, is the letter “a.”

Article I Section 1 Clause 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The letter “a” before “Congress” and “Senate” tells us there is more than one Congress and more than one Senate.

The United States congress legislates for territories. The United States of America congress legislates for the several States.

Actually I go to the Articles to find the word "perpetual". This word is nowhere to be found in the constitution. A great international war was fought in the 1860's over this single word. Was Lincoln acting for the United States (not a perpetual entity) or the Articles when he grew irritated over the south leaving the union?

[Awoke]

There could be some truth that if the occupation of law doesn't drive you to drink it certainly will drive you to the unemployment line.


http://www.edrivera.com/

I read one of the articles from his page you linked. It is confusing, but he is basically asserting that Washington swapped the official version of the Constitution for another version of the constitution. Now my head is spinning.

[Awoke]

Some highlights from his "Letter to Captives"

Dear Captive of Government,


You are a fellow Captive of government. We are all captives of government, because we have forgotten what truth makes us free. Government truth is qualified as to people, place and purpose. God’s truth is universal. It is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith that obedience to God’s laws will make us free. God makes His laws easily known by writing them on every human heart. The Congress of the United States has become the Tower of Babel of written law.

A vacant Office of President makes it impossible for there to be a Constitution for the United States of America. Millions of voters cast their ballots for a President of the United States knowing that they aren’t really going to elect a President of the United States. What would happen if they learned the truth? The truth is the person elected President by the Electoral College should take an oath to hold the Office of President and to support the Constitution as it is written.

Everyone wrongly thinks the President Elect takes an oath to support the Constitution, which was written and ratified just before Washington was elected to the Office of President. The truth is no President has ever taken an oath to support the Constitution or tell the American people the truth. The oath of Office of President of the United States was first whispered by George Washington to an audience straining to hear the truth, was supposed to be a promise to support. Washington whispered the oath to limit the number of witnesses to what he had done. Remember, the President Elect produced no written record of the oath he had just taken and audio recordings would not be possible until there were few if any Americans to question the oath being taken.

These truths and the others that will be revealed can only be known by you, if you read the Constitution literally. For example, the Office of President is not the Office of President of the United States or any other Office.

When these Offices are kept separate, you the Captive of government can be freed. Freedom comes from knowing how government in America was slowly taken over by George Washington representing the military establishment. These truths are hidden in the different names given to the Presidential Offices held by the same person.

http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2

[Awoke]

This is crazy. So then what this author is saying is that the Constitution, as you know it, has never been adopted by any single president, because Washington did not qualify to take the "Office of President", due to the fact that he was not a 14 year resident.

Article VII tells us, also, that the Constitution counts time from July 4, 1776. The fourteen Years residency requirement of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 can’t be met until July 4, 1790. George Washington was conveniently elected before he could qualify for the Office of President.

George Washington was not qualified to the Office of President, when he was elected on February 4, 1789, so on April 30, 1789 he took the oath of Office of President of the United States, an Office without any requirements because it was at will employment.


Every President Elect including Barack Hussein Obama has followed the lead of George Washington by refusing to take the oath of Office of President. No binding oath means no bothersome Constitution to keep the government in check.


The consequence of not taking the oath “to support this Constitution” and taking the oath to be an employee of Congress for the purpose of taking on the administration of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America is the eventual disintegration of government and the economy. Those who know the value of firearms in the preservation of the truth should consider becoming students just to preserve the right to own and use firearms without restrictions.

This piece is in regards to the 2A, found here:
http://www.edrivera.com/?cat=155

I highlighted the word "This" because it is a recurring theme in his writings. The "Office of President" is not equal to the "Office of President of the United States". In similar fashion, the term "This Constitution" is not equal to "The Constitution of the United States".

Dudes, my head is spinning.

[Glass]

This is correct. I've heard the 14 year issue before, however the real issue is that there are two constitutions and subequently there are/could be two nations albeit with similar but not identical names.

As has been pointed out here before, these creations of mans mind may not apply to territory but to an image of territory or a plane hovering above territory. the USofA looks like it is occupying a large portion of the north american continent but is it really?

These days the story is often presented by saying there was a constitutional government in existance up to a point. Lets say 1933 when Rosenvelt declared the USofA to be bankrupt. Then all of a sudden you have this thing called the US of A. And it also has a Government.

It was so slight a move no one noticed it. Perhaps they did back then cause people were smarter.

The thing is, the organisation which calls itself a government is actually a private corporation tradingh with a similar name.

So what happened to the old government, for the United States? Did it become the property of the creditors who called in the national debt? Was it simply abandoned and everyone was moved over to the new government.

I think it could be either. I'm not 100% sure. There are people out ther who are taking up official posts in original United States on the basis that it has been abandoned.

Most commonwealth countries are operating this way. Australia has a federal government which was registered as a corporation in 1933. Perhaps it's 1935. It's listed in Edgar on the SEC web site. Perhaps you will find Canada there as well.

This is my opinion based on what I believe I know or comprehend. It could be way off or it could be right. When a constitution is created and agreed, this creates a constructive trust. A trust can be explicit, implied, constructive....probably some others. A trust has a Trustee, a Beneficiary and a Fiduciary. Trustee and Fiduciary could be the same AFAIK but a Beneficiary can't be a Trustee.

I believe properly constituted governments are Trustee's of the constructive or implied trust arising from a constitution. They require no corporate registration or vasal to operate. I believe these original trusts have been abandoned and the funds within the trusts have been either pilfered or transfered into the hands of corporate actors masquarading as Trustees

This is my view of things as I see them. This brings the discussion around to deciding which one of these entities you want to exist in. Do you want to be part of the 14th amendment population, subject citizens to the corporatation of the United States of America or do you want to be a part of one of the several states.

Then of course there is the question, does the consitution apply to you at all? Are you a party to it? Were you there? Do you have to sign the thing to be affected by it?

What can you do? You can declare your position. You can declare to be no part of any of it. This has been discussed here as well.

Awoke, you are in Canada, yes? You are very fortunate because your statutes make no bones about somethings politic and with regards to God given rights. I think it's nearly time to introduce you to Claim of Right.

[Hatha Sunahara]

From his Letter to Captives:

I have proven that the basis of the American criminal justice system is based on a military model. For many years, it has been suggested and firmly believed by many that the United States government courts were admiralty courts and the country was being ruled by admiralty law. There is no denying that the United States Government appears to use military law in its courts and judicial procedure. Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly states that the Judicial Power of the United States of America extends to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. However, as the Constitution has not been “Adopted,” by the President of the United States of America, the Constitution is not the source of admiralty or maritime judicial power.

Eustace Mullins talked about how the courts in the US use Admiralty law in his book The Rape of Justice. But he didn't say much about the origins of Admiralty law, or why it is used in US courts. This has a better explanation, but still not enough for me. One thing that has fallen in place for me is in the recent NDAA, the President claims the power to 'indefinitely detain' people. That is a concept that is based on 'military' law--not constitutional law.

The indefinite detention provision in the NDAA points to some form of deception that is being used by the government as to how the laws are being interpreted by the government.

We also have 'secret laws'. Ones which the public is kept unaware of how the government interprets laws, such as the Patriot Act. I recently ran into this article:

http://rt.com/usa/news/senators-patr...nment-law-749/

Something is really quite rotten when a government has 'secret laws'. And the legislators aren't privy to how their laws are being enforced. Never in my wildest dreams had I thought that I would be looking at something like Russia Today as a more credible source of news than what I could watch on TV.

Hatha

[Glass]

Hatha,

Good observations re the origins of the law. Law Merchant Law was the system of commercial arbitration developed by merchants and executed in their Staples. Staple is an interesting historical word but only for curiosity's sake. A Staple is kind of like the gentlemens lounge/club for merchants dealing in a particular type of product. So textiles traders had a staple, spices, narcotics, etc all had staples.

When a dispute arose from a deal between a merchant and another merchant or a contracted boat, these were arbitrated in the Staple. This is where Equity law has sprung from. I've mentioned usrfruct on several occasions. Issues surrounding usrfruct might be common place in a Law Merchant Law arbitration. But there would be other disputes as well. Often a merchant would back a voyage to far off lands in return for some booty. If the booty was not up to scratch, damaged, lost or consumed by usrfruct and not replenished etc then there would be a claim by the backer against the ships owner.

The whole of the modern commerce system stems from the ancient merchant trading customs and laws.

This is what bankruptcy is. There is a dispute over the quality, quantity, value or ownership of some seafaring booty. They scuttle the ship and send it onto the bank. They rupture it on the shore. It can no longe sail.... for 7 years. 7 years for cest e qui, 7 years for bankruptcy.

The great seafaring merchant men are renowned in history. Marco Polo, the spanish, Captain Cook, Chris Coluimbus, the porteguese. All of these people operated on a Letter of Marque.... there is another letters enabling piracy... can't recall it but someone here posted it a week or so ago.

t The British Government appears to have contributed to this remarkable for- bearance I y its tardiness in issuing Letters of Marque. " In last Tuesday's Gazette" says the paper of April nth, 1777, "the Lords of the Admiralty give notice that they are ready to issue commissions to private ships for cruising against the Americans."

History of the Liverpool Privateers.

As far as I can tell Admiralty and Law Merchant Law come from the same basic roots. One conducts commerce - Merchants and the other interdicts traffic using force. Literally nothing has changed in 400+ years. We have modern times and more modern pronounciation of words but the system is still the same. It is still people sailing the oceans... you, me as vassals and conducting commerce as merchants and then there is the admiralty which protects its ports and imposes a levy upon all traffic. This power extends to all ocean and inland waters connected to the ocean. Roads i.e. highways are considered inland waterways. Police(e) are part of the admiralty. Some police dress as marines (kakhi). Most dress in Navy blue.

So yes in short you are under military rule. You must be because the National Emergency has never been revoked.

I have a copy of the Merchant Law book. I don't have it with me. I think it was published 1918 or 1910? I'll dig it out later.
(Staples lead to attachment. Attachment means something particular at law. We staple documents. We attached things to other things.)

[palani]

As to the United States of America I have heard it said that this corporate name was taken by the Virginia Company in the early 1700's. Never verified by me (I have never met a living soul from the early 1700's) so it is simply a possibility worth considering.

[Glass]

Spot on again palani. The Virginia Co and the East India Co. 2 of the best. East India is a whole other tangent. It's been the largest narcotics trafficking organisation in the world for many centuries. I don't know about the Virginia Co. It could well be the US trafficking arm. They had a thing to do with Tabacco didn't they?

The book is: The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; in three parts. John E. Hall Esq 1809

It describes a lot to do with secured interests and how to obtain them, requirements there of. When someone encounters the law and goes through process they will be subject to attachment (stapled), lien and secured interests on their person. You are both a vassal and property. Merchants in Admiralty will treat you as such according to the situation.

There is a 3rd way. That is as a secured party of interest in your own person. With the superior claim, read first in time first in line, they will need to negotiate with you for settlement rather than discuss with the judge how to divide up the booty, which is what they do with people who don't know who they are. You are creditor. You have power. Creditors always have power in Admiralty.