Law is a Practice

7/28/2019 Law is a Practice

1/10


2/10

as we have always said from the beginning, not being another patriot for hire outfit that simply

tells you how to do your taxes, or reclaim your land, or reclaim commercial title to yourstrawman JOHN HENRY DOE. Look at our links section and you will find dozens of outfits

that already do that and more.

It is often suggested that we need our own building, a full timeArticle Three Court,

classes and manuals, and a library. Would our own building make the truth of the law seem

more valid than simply hearing it in the basement of a fire hall? With the glut of books andmanuals regurgitating everything the system already shovels out, what more could we publish

to reaffirm the country is bankrupt and taxes are actually voluntary? Why build a law library

when the ones we used are maintained and staffed by folks who are happy to help us findwhatever we need? And when will the patriots learn, if they truly are We the People, that the

courts that exist already belong to We the People, who step up to the plate and act like people

in charge instead of people in fear and dismay?

What is needed is to ignite the flame of sovereignty in each person who bothers to tie up

his or her Tuesday night at a meeting instead of in front of the television. What is needed is for

others to recreate in their own garage, community center, or tire shop, the same nexus that got

us off the ground. What is needed is study groups who get together and teach each other how touse the law library and the courts. True reform, true power, grows from the independence of

such groups who seek to make themselves formidable and educated, and who then cometogether and share their discoveries as a community. One hundred people in a HOW TO

seminar for a hundred bucks produces five folks that already knew and ninety five others

saying for the next ten weeks, What the hell do I do now?

I have noticed, in recent months, many folks who initially show up to a monthlymeeting filled with inspiration and awe at their introduction, only to become incredibly

overwhelmed by the multitude of material they can quickly lose themselves in. This is not

surprising, especially in the area of income taxes. It is hard to find ten IRS agents to agree on

the Internal Revenue Code, let alone ten tax court judges. That inspiration often transformsimmediately into intimidation when the stories from those who took on the system are loaded

with masses of information that demonstrate how much time and effort the person,doing hisvictory dance from the podium, had put into the adventure. This often does as much tosuffocate the flame in the beginner as it does to inspire.

The other thing that seems to keep finding its way into an idea that none of the originalgroup had in mind is this pounding of the Christian message to the extent that many newcomers

get the idea that Christianity is somehow a necessary prerequisite to understanding the law. It

is understandable considering our national heritage is laced with that legacy and many of the

grassroots contributors to this movement are fired with conviction in the Bible that equals their

conviction in the cause of freedom. However, the biblical code can be as subjectivelymanipulated as the U.S. Code so it should be no less subject to scrutiny as a source for

justification and precedent. The law does not exist because it is in the Bible. The Bible existsbecause someone recognized the law. The Declaration of Independence exists for the same

reason. Every man and woman is a sovereign, free, if they choose, to embrace Christianity.

But true understanding of the Christian message must surrender to the proposition that onecannot truly be a Christian if they are not first acting with total and absolute free will to choose

their belief. That means sovereign does not necessarily equal Christian. This conflict was

most visible two years ago when we had a sizeable minority that adamantly opposed allowing


3/10

women on our juries because of, at least in my opinion, an antiquated addiction to an outdated

tradition for which a careful study of state histories does not even lend sufficient support.

What happens on the day that a gay couple, seeking recognition of their contractual

union, comes to the court to hopefully find the remedy they cant find in the statutory systemwithout overcoming tremendous bureaucratic barriers and hurdles? What will they tell all their

friends, gay or straight, of these liberty loving patriots advocating justice and reform if they are

turned away by a group who can only adhere to the Bible as the last resort to suggest that theirunion cannot be recognized by law? Many reading this article may clear it off their screen right

now, offended or fearful that I am not somehow being true to the real law. Maybe that is

the problem though. So many folks in the freedom movement dont have a clue what the hellthe law actually is. What is frightening is when folks just getting started in the movement are

giving seminars six months later, or pushing paperwork for fifty bucks a pop for people having

no clue what to do with it in a crunch. This is a major liability for a fractionalized group of

radicals spread here and there around the country advocating a message that is quicklyinterpreted in the mainstream media as dangerous and immediately attracts labels that make the

word patriot synonymous with militia, anti-government, and worse.

As we have progressed we have also, not surprisingly, caused no small amount offriction with many agents of the statutory system who dont know who they are and where they

are. Some of the stories are down right humorous; others fill us with hope, while others seem todepict nothing but despair in our nations long road to rediscovering liberty. Last summer one of

our regular attendees of monthly meetings was trying his hand at the role of common law

counsel for a guy in traffic court. As it was related to me, this fellow appeared several times in

the court room with his companion who had requested he sit at the table and help him answerquestions and so on. The first time the judge wouldnt have it and the counselor had to sit inthe peanut gallery. But apparently in a subsequent proceeding the judge allowed this guy to not

only sit at the table but to also voir dire the judge himself as to what law would be administered

in this court. The judge responded, The only law in this courtroom is the Constitution of the

United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. This small anecdotal victory didnot sit well with the prosecuting attorney who later threatened to have him charged with

practicing law without a license.

That is the dumbest phrase I ever heard! It is an impossibility of law to practice law

without license. In fact, the very concept of a society capable of manifesting order and liberty,

side by side,presumes that everyone practice law. It is, however, an absolute necessity toknow the law in order to practice it.

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Practice. Repeated or customary action; habitual performance; a

succession of acts of similar kind; custom; usage. Application of science to

the wants of men. The exercise of any profession.Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.


4/10

License. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise

be unlawful.Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

It is said that a scientist will attempt to make the impossible possible, while a politicianwill almost always make the possible impossible. Lawyers seem to make it impossible to do

anything at all without getting sued. The strange thing about lawyers is that they are trained to

literally advocate, if necessary, a position that asserts that reality which you know ISactuallyISNOT. What we today call government, in its myriad forms and offshoots, makes it impossible

to exist without its constant intervention, permission, and supervision. It is this anathema to

liberty that has sparked the movement that has been most popularly coined patriot.

There is no shortage of folks out there who will offer you advice and counsel on how to

free yourself from the bonds of government and the messed up legal system. They all tell youthe same thing, Learn the law. They also will say, if they have any smarts at all, you must

learn to think for yourself and master the law eventually on your own since no one else can do

it for you. So how do you learn the law? Who do you listen to? Where do you start? A law

dictionary? The Constitution? How about page one of the U.S. Code and just keep turningpages? Or maybe go to law school? You can learn a lot in law school, but dont kid yourself.

Law schools train practitioners skilled at getting around the law. That does not mean that

lawyers are all bad people intent on screwing everyone anymore than cops are all meatheadsthat just want to thump people and write tickets. A lot of these folks beat their heads against the

wall trying to do their jobs and still look in the mirror while most of society, in its complacency

and selfish shortsightedness, does nothing to make it any easier for them. This societal apathyis THE CAUSE of the disease that infects the nation losing its freedoms day by day.

Most outfits in the patriot industry that claim to teach (market) law teach it from the

vantage point of the Constitution. Others use the Bible as their foundation. The newest trend is

to begin with the Uniform Commercial Code. Many others, lacking a coherent plan, simplyoperate from the I got royally screwed school of thought. As a rule, the harder it is for them

to explain the law to you, the less likely they really know the law at all. So let me give you twovery simple words that, in my opinion, are the only two words you will ever need to master to

know the law.

Agreement Trespass

All law is based in the understanding of these two words. Any five year old kid after acouple sessions in the playground understands this intrinsically. Every working class Joe that

sweats out an honest living already knows subconsciously that these two words are the law ofbasic survival. Every dude who makes it to the top and manages to stay there knows it too. Sowhat is it that these regular folks already know, from experience, that others have to go through

three years of law school to be certified to assert in a courtroom on someone elses behalf?

Lets begin with the first word, agreement. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th

Edition, agreement is defined as;

A meeting of two or more minds; a coming together in opinion or

determination; the coming together in accord of two minds on a given


5/10

proposition. In law, a concord of understanding and intention between

two or more relative rights and duties, of certain past or future facts or

performances. The consent of two or more persons concurring

respecting the transmission of some property, right, or benefits, with

the view of contracting an obligation, a mutual obligation.

Agreement is a term distinguished from contract in that a contract requires the

demonstration of bargain or consideration. All contracts represent agreements, but allagreements are not necessarily contracts. If Joe asks Jim to loan him his pole digger so he can

put in a fence and Jim agrees if Joe loans Jim his ladder for a roofing project such an agreementis a contract. The bargain is use/possession of property in exchange for the same. If, on the

other hand, Jim merely asks to borrow Joes ladder for a day to fix his own roof there is no

contract. Joe, besides the benefits of a good relationship with Jim and the warm fuzzy feelingthat he lent him aid, gets nothing of market value in return for the displacement of his ladder

for a day. The agreement is unenforceable in a court because it lacks consideration. However,

Jim still has constructive title to Joes property for the day because Joe agreed to transfer

possession. Possession is nine tenths of the law. While Jim is using the ladder the law is on hisside because he has possession.

Now let us change the scenario. Jim doesnt really know Joe well but walks by Joesdriveway and sees in the open garage a ladder laying on the floor. Jim walks onto the driveway

and into the garage, takes the ladder home with him and uses it for the day to fix his roof. He

returns the next day with the ladder and there stands a disturbed Joe. Jim has committed a

trespass.

Trespass. An unlawful interference with ones person, property, or

rights. At common law, trespass was a form of action brought to

recover damages for any injury to ones person or property or

relationship with another.

The term trespass presumes an inherent right already existing in the thing or boundaryin question. This is an important and fundamental element to consider when reading paragraphtwo of the Declaration of Independence;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If Jim strikes Joe in the head with a shovel and kills him it is a trespass. If Joe kidnapsJim and locks him in the basement it is a trespass. But here is an interesting question. What if

Joe is dying of an extremely debilitating disease and wishes to relinquish his possession of life

on this earth. If Joe asks Jim to put him out of his misery is there a trespass? Has there been anagreement if Jim submits to Joes request and executes performance? If Joe executed his wishfor Jim to kill him and did so in writing, in the presence of witness, even had his signature

notarized side by side with Jims signature, has this agreement not been laid down,

ordained, or established as the term law is defined in Blacks?

A violation of law requires some quantifiable infraction or breach of a right. Blacks

defines the term violation as an injury; infringement; breach of right, duty or law; ravishment;seduction. Therefore, trespass conforms to the term violation in that there is a definitive


6/10

right in question subject to infringement. But if a person waives their right or claim to a thing

and submits its use or possession to another, no violation has occurred.

In the most basic sense, trespass is a required element in identifying any breach of law.

Even in the color of law laden world of bankruptcy, statutes, codes, and ordinances, trespassis still a requisite element upon which the burden of proof rests. It demands one to show an

injury to a person or property, even in the slippery slope of negligence law the breach and the

damage must be shown even if the presumed duty of care is agreed to exist. In the statutoryworld, every offense the system alleges in any ordinance or regulation must allege a trespass

against the state as a moving party. Such a theory quickly falls on its face, however, for want of

an injured party that can articulate rights that were affected. The state has no rights, it is anidea, not a person and can therefore never suffer harm. And when called to the stand, it cannot

testify against the accused. But for the purposes of this essay it is time to return to Joe and his

Kevorkian companion Jim. If you are of the religious persuasion found in a large percentage of

vocal individuals in the patriot movement, you may argue that this assisted suicide is aviolation because God gave Joe his Life and only God may take it from him. This is a fine

argument but it presumes that God has title to Joe. This is fine to suggest and thus, if provable,

meets the burden of proof necessary to show Jim has trespassed on Gods property right in Joe.

If God wishes to enforce that claim he can stay Jims hand by divine intervention, or seekremedy by bringing seven years of plague and misfortune upon Jims shoulders.

But if God wont enforce his claim of title against Joe can anyone else do so on Gods

behalf? The Bill of Rights clearly states that the Congress may pass no law establishing

religion. On whose behalf, if the state seeks to punish Jim for this alleged violation, can the

state articulate authority to do so? Upon behalf of what victim or aggrieved party can the statemake a claim? Can any other person step in Gods shoes with a claim? If the state wont evenrecognize in court the existence of a Creator as is stated in the Declaration of Independence,

how then can it claim trespass on anyone save Joe himself? And if Joe submitted to a death

sentence, thereby waiving for the record any possibility of a third party entering claim upon his

behalf, whose rights or property were interfered with?

In todays modern society, where so many hail the necessity of separation of church and

state to such a degree that the football coach cant say a prayer with his team before a game,there is only one argument the state can possibly make for the prohibition of suicide or assisted

suicide. The state must submit the notion that THE STATE itself has property rights over Joe.

Since this scenario would be an absolute anathema to the founding principles on which thisnation was conceived, such a conclusion cannot comport with the law.

When trying to ascertain and understand the law it is often helpful to look to nature and

recognize the laws we tend to never question. If you pull a quarter from your pocket and

release it to fall, it will descend to the ground at the rate of 32 feet per second. If you releaseyour car keys they will descend at the same rate. This is the law of gravity. No legislative

body can change it. They may agree for the purposes of an experimental hypothesis toaccept the law of gravity to be something else but no agreement will change the reality of the

quarter and the car keys rate of descent. The law of gravity is merely the recording of

something observed consistently over many trials. It is only laid down, ordained, orestablished because no one has observed any occurrence to the contrary.

In the study of human anatomy and biology we observe that when a foreign body entersthe system of a human the physiology of the human exercises its right of control and title by


7/10

sounding the call of numerous antibodies to either expel the foreign matter, digest, or kill it

outright. Our years of observing human reactions to foreign intrusions show the law of trespassplayed out in the human body. The common cold virus is a trespass. A shard of glass stuck in

your skin is a trespass. On the more spiritual level, one might as easily argue demonic

possession is a trespass. Trespass is easy to see and identify, it is a res ipsa loquitorthe thing

speaks for itself.

One need look no farther than the obvious in nature to also find identifiable examples ofagreement. Hydrogen and Oxygen hook up and make water. Flame identifies the agreement of

heat, carbon, and oxygen. Polar magnetism, moss on a rock, tree roots in the soil, the train of

cargo hauling ants in the colony, the planets in orbitall these unique events of naturedemonstrate a harmony of agreement. Two bald eagles, soaring through the same territory,

may be a unique vision to the eye, yet one of them will eventually have to leave the territory

either by agreement or by the victor in a trespass action. Darwins law determines which

claimant will prevail in such an action.

Man, on the other hand, is an anomaly in this discussion of law because man possesses

a trait unique and set apart from the other beasts of nature. Man exercises imagination. Man

can construct an abstract of his observations of reality and in so doing create a reality notcontemplated by nature. Assuming for the sake of argument that an ant lacks the power of

imagination, the ant then cannot cognate the idea of doing anything else other than hauling thecargo through the tunnels of the colony. The moss cannot imagine not growing on a rock or

exposed tree root. The tiger cannot contemplate harvesting soybeans as an alternative protein

to the gazelle that it chases down and kills with its claws and jaws. Man alone (as far as we

know) possesses this trait.

This means man can imagine his way outside of the law. Man is the only creature that

can push that envelope. He can agree to commerce outside those boundaries, he can breach,

trespass, defy, and rise above the law. But mancannotchangethe law. It is this fact that

makes our statutory maze of codes and regulations so maddening. Yet the most difficultconcept many have in their comprehension of the statutory wonderland is that it does in fact

conform with the notion that man cannot change the law.

The example that comes closest to home for us in this study of the bankrupt economy is

House Joint Resolution 192. Read it again and again and it strikes one as the most asinine

piece of legalese ever published by the Congress;

(a)every provision contained in or made with respect to any

obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment

in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in

money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be againstpublic policy

(b)the term coin or currency means coin or currency of the United

States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the

Federal Reserve banks and national banks and national banking

associations.


8/10

This says in plain English that it is against

the law to demand payment on a debt.

Note I did not say against statute or code, but against the law. Recall again that lawrequires only two concepts; agreement and trespass. The economic system set up in this nationby the Congress and the Federal Reserve DEMANDED the passage of the above Statute at

Large. They had no choice but to enact this law if the system they sought to put in place was to

operate in harmony with the law.

The law is something one observes as true, not something we merely invent and modifyby a body politic no matter how much informed public support there may be behind it. In this

case the Fed set up a currency system that would allow commerce within a bankruptcy.

Eventually the only currency available to anyone would be Federal Reserve notes. A notecannot pay off a debt so it is therefore not money. If you have no means to pay debts available

you can never get out of debt even if you wish to. This presents a state thatviolates the lawrecognized in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed in the thirteenth amendment and

subsequent sections of the US Code under Title 18.

18 USC 1581. Peonage; obstructing enforcement

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of

peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in

or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under

this title or imprisoned no more than 10 years, or both.

Peonage A condition of servitude (prohibited by the 13th

Amendment) compelling persons to perform labor in order to pay

of a debt.

Blacks Law

Dictionary

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment

for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall

exist within the United States, or any place subject to their

jurisdiction.

Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the

Pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of

Independence

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men,

yet every man has property in his own person. This nobody

has any right to but himself.


9/10


10/10

Man alone operates as a creature, bound in a material universe with physical

boundaries, capable of conceiving and imagining what the natural world rarely seems todemonstrate to all but those with faith. While here, however, man must reconcile that

imagination of liberty with the limits the law of his physical existence lays out on the game

board. His power of imagination is limitless, but it also suggests his power to imagine himselfright out of the equation by failing to guard against the ultimate of human weakness, pride.

That weakness demonstrates itself whether the player is a religious fanatic or an unbeliever.

One denies mans ability as an equal partner in this stage play because of the constant need fora supreme deity in the spiritual hierarchy. The other denies mans intuition to connect with and

conceive of realities our science and extensive system of academics falls short of explaining.

Many in the freedom movement throw the accusations around that the state has

substituted itself for God, yet religion itself is nothing more than the institutional quest to

capture that idea. From who do you, the sovereign, acquire license to act in any contractual

capacity? Your answer, if you wish to claim you are sovereign, must be no one.

Many skeptics of this movement are quick (and wise) to demand citations of proof,

references to statutes, case precedence, treaties, or whatever. Such aids are helpful and have a

great utility value for the man or woman truly seeking to discover their own sovereignty. Buttoo many patriots who claim the desire for recognition of sovereignty are really asking for

permission because they have not yet granted it to themselves. If you are looking to adocument, any documenthell it could be the holy grail of ancient parchments that holds the

missing link to the meaning of life itselfyou will not find the permission you seek. Until

you find it in yourself to claim what you are, to imagine what you are, to BELIEVE what you

are, you will never realize it.

Two thousand years ago a fellow wandering around Palestine peddling an idea stirred

up a hornets nest that I firmly believe was a key progenitor in the great experiment we now call

America. Of all the things he said, the one statement attributed to him above all others that

seems most appropriate to close this article went something like this.

If you had the faith the size of a

mustard seed, you could move

mountains.

Go out there and practice your faith. Practice the Law. You willmove mountains.

Peace be with you,

the force

Law is a Practice

Documents

Transcript of Law is a Practice