Enemy “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “enemy” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

Another nation with which the country is in a state of war; more broadly defined for the purposes of some statutes, as including the individuals and corporations of a nation with which the country is at war [56 Am J1st War § 83]. Narrowly interpreted, an “enemy” is always the subject of a foreign power, who owes no allegiance to our government or country [United States v. Greathouse (CC Cal) 4 Sawy 457, 466, F Cas No 15254]. Reasonably, a person engaged against the United States in a rebellion or civil war is an “enemy.” [ 56 Am J1st War § 62]. The status of a person as an “enemy” for the purposes of the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act is determined with reference to domicil or residence in the territory of the nation which is a belligerent against the United States rather than according to nationality [56 Am J1st War § 83]. For the purposes of such statutes, an “enemy” may be a partnership, corporation, or other body of individuals [56 Am J1st War § 83].

See alien enemy; public enemy

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. By this term is understood the whole body of a nation at war with another. It also signifies a citizen or subject of such a nation, as when we say an alien enemy. In a still more extended sense, the word includes any of the subjects or citizens of a state in amity with the United States, who, have commenced, or have made preparations for commencing hostilities against the United States; and also the citizens or subjects of a state in amity with the United States, who are in the service of a state at war with them [Salk. 635; Bac. Ab. Treason, G.]

  2. An enemy cannot, as a general rule, enter into any contract which can be enforced in the courts of law; but the rule is not without exceptions; as, for example, when a state permits expressly its own citizens to trade with the enemy; and perhaps a contract for necessaries, or for money to enable the individual to get home, might be enforced [7 Pet. R. 586].

  3. An alien enemy cannot, in general, sue during the war, a citizen of the United States, either in the courts of, the United States, or those of the several states [1 Kent, Com. 68; 15 John. R. 57 S. C. 16 John. R. 438. Vide marsh. Ins. c. 2, s. 1; Park. Ins. Index. h. t.; Wesk. Ins. 197; Phil. Ins. Index. h.t.; Chit. Comm. Law, Index, h.t.; Chit. Law of Nations, Index. h.t.]

  4. By the term enemy is also understood, a person who is desirous of doing injury to another. The Latins had two terms to signify these two classes of persons; the first, or the public enemy, they called hostis, and the latter, or the private enemy, inimicus.

 

(Black’s)

In public law, signifies either the nation which is at war with another, or a citizen or subject of such nation.

  • Alien enemy: an alien, that is, a citizen or subject of a foreign state or power, residing within a given country, is called an “alien ami” if the country where he lives is at peace with the country of which he is a citizen or subject; but if a state of war exists between the two countries he is called an “alien enemy,” and in that character is denied access to the courts or aid from any of the departments of government.

  • Enemy’s property: in international law, and particularly in the usage of prize courts, this term designates any property which is engaged or used in illegal intercourse with the public enemy, whether belonging to an ally or a citizen, as the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character and attaches to it all the penal consequences [The Benito Estenger, 176 U.S. 568, 20 Sup. Ct. 489, 44 L. Ed. 592; The Sally, 8 Cranch, 382, 3 L. Ed. 597; Prize Cases, 2 Black. 674, 17 L. Ed. 459].

  • Public enemy: a nation at war with the United States; also every citizen or subject of such nation. Not including robbers, thieves, private depredators, or riotous mobs [State v. Moore, 74 Mo. 417, 41 Am. Rep. 322; Lewis v. Ludwick, 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 368, 98 Am. Dec. 454; Russell v. Fagan, 7 Houst. (Del.) 389, 8 Atl. 258, 30 S. W. 425, 28 L. R. A. 80, 46 Am. St. Rep. 208].

 

(Webster’s)

EN’EMY, n. [L. inimicus]

  1. A foe; an adversary. A private enemy is one who hates another and wishes him injury, or attempts to do him injury to gratify his own malice or ill will. A public enemy or foe, is one who belongs to a nation or party, at war with another.

  • I way to you, love your enemies, Matt. 5

  • Enemies in war; in peace friends.

  1. One who hates or dislikes; as an enemy to truth or falsehood.

  2. In theology, and by way of eminence, the enemy is the Devil; the archfiend.

  3. In military affairs, the opposing army or naval force in war, is called the enemy.

Thomas Jefferson Swore Upon the Altar of God

In a 1800 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson explains that he promised him a letter on Christianity, but wanted more time in order to do a good job on it, particularly because Jefferson feared that the clergy of the Episcopalians and Congregationalists would try to run afoul of the Establishment clause (special thanks to NoBeliefs.com for their compilation of referenced source citations).

 

Altar of God - Thomas Jefferson

The Politics of Obedience

Believers in absolute government like to pontificate that the citizenry is bound to obey everything agents of the State tell them to do. Those who prefer to live without rulers, whether in the form of a limited government or in a state of nature, inherently disagree with the very notion that they owe undue allegiance towards a predatory criminal syndicate. Needless to say, it becomes imperative for us to try and understand the psychosocial dynamics of tyranny itself.

 

 

Published in 1576, the author tries to understand in his essay why his fellow countrymen obey the government as easily as they do with virtually no resistance. As Boétie says:

 

“For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation!”

 

A striking situation indeed, but having briefly stated his goal, I must ask what led up to such a state of affairs? Boétie asserts:

 

“There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance…although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of ruling is practically the same; those who are elected act as if they were breaking in bullocks; those who are conquerors make the people their prey; those who are heirs plan to treat them as if they were their natural slaves.”

 

So it would seem that if those positions of power weren’t perceived to be vacant, then there would be nothing for any tyrant to seize control of, thereby rendering his supposed “authority” null & void. Of course, if the people simple acquiescence to any of these three scenarios, they have tacitly consented to be dominated, subjugated, and terrorized. Perhaps Boétie can offer a explanation on this point:

 

“When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves…the essential reason why men take orders willingly is that they are born serfs and are reared as such. From this cause there follows another result, namely that people easily become cowardly and submissive under tyrants…And now, since all beings, because they feel, suffer misery in subjection and long for liberty; since the very beasts, although made for the services of man, cannot become accustomed to control without protest, what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?”

 

If anything, Boétie would appear to partially support George Mercier’s contention that it is the fault of the people themselves why they are suffering as they are under the government. I also appreciate how Boétie includes social engineering as the key factor as to why those who should be exercising their right of revolution are refusing to do so. He continues by saying:

 

“It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to…Nevertheless it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection…We should exonerate and forgive them, since they have not seen even the shadow of liberty, and, being quite unaware of it, cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery.”

 

This is why social engineering is so damn dangerous – if it continues on long enough, the next generation will never have known freedom, and thus will not fight to regain it for their children, much less themselves. If there was ever a reason why any multi-generational project for achieving freedom possesses a key flaw, it lies in the assumption that children care more about the liberty their parents once enjoyed, but that they themselves never experienced. Misunderstanding incrementalization is quite deadly to the human soul, and I’m glad that Boétie considered kicking the can down the road to be rather, well, counter-productive. I must ask, though, what is the result of doing what can be done in our own lifetimes, instead of shouldering it upon the next several generations? Boétie said:

 

“By this time it should be evident that liberty once lost, valor also perishes. A subject people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in combat: its men march sullenly to danger almost as if in bonds, and stultified; they do not feel throbbing within them that eagerness for liberty which engenders scorn of peril and imparts readiness to acquire honor and glory by a brave death amidst one’s comrades. Among free men there is competition as to who will do most, each for the common good, each by himself, all expecting to share in the misfortunes of defeat, or in the benefits of victory; but an enslaved people loses in addition to this warlike courage, all signs of enthusiasm, for their hearts are degraded, submissive, and incapable of any great deed. Tyrants are well aware of this, and, in order to degrade their subjects further, encourage them to assume this attitude and make it instinctive.”

 

Make hay while the sun shines, so it would appear, lest your progeny devolve into a bunch of sniveling cowards. Again, why should any of us expect those who have never possessed something to be jealous of it?

Aiding tyrants in their seizure of coercive power, is the warfarewelfare state, because the rarely mentioned secret of these two halves is that they work in tandem. Boétie describes how after King Croesus of the Lydians was captured by Cyrus the Great following the fall of the capitol city, Sardis:

 

“He established in it brothels, taverns, and public games, and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to enjoy them. He found this type of garrison so effective that he never again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. These wretched people enjoyed themselves inventing all kinds of games, so that the Latins have derived the word from them, and what we call pastimes they call ludi, as if they meant to say Lydi. Not all tyrants have manifested so clearly their intention to effeminize their victims; but in fact, what the aforementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into effect, most of the others have pursued secretly as an end. It is indeed the nature of the populace, whose density is always greater in the cities, to be suspicious toward one who has their welfare at heart, and gullible toward one who fools them.”

 

This is rather significant, because what these handouts were purposefully designed to do was pacify the captive population into not exercising their right of revolution. After describing some related aspects of this, Boétie comments that:

 

“Truly, it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but no so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books…It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.”

 

In other words, the welfare state solidified the victory won by the warfare state so as to prevent the victims of statism from committing tyrannicide. Only the left-right paradigm believes that the welfare state and the warfare state are opposed to each other, with fascists licking the jackboots of the king’s mercenaries while the communists gorge themselves on the hanging chads from the king’s table. The truth of the matter is that both the fascists and the communists (who dishonestly label themselves as “conservatives” and “liberals,” respectively) are statists, that is, adoring cult members who worship the most dangerous superstition ever known throughout the whole history of mankind.

Revealingly, it is not only the tyrant himself that is the problem, but also his entourage. As Boétie puts it:

 

“It is not the troops on horseback, it is not the companies afoot, it is not arms that defend the tyrant…In short, when the point is reached, through big favors or little ones, that large profits or small are obtained under a tyrant, there are found almost as many people to whom tyranny seems advantageous as those to whom liberty would seem desirable…Let such men lay aside briefly their ambition, or let them forget for a moment their avarice, and look at themselves as they really are. Then they will realize clearly that the townspeople, the peasants whom they trample under foot and treat worse than convicts or slaves, they will realize, I say, that these people, mistreated as they may be, are nevertheless, in comparison with themselves, better off and fairly free.”

 

Besides the simile that could be evocative of the idea that “only proles & animals are free,” Boétie is illustrating how tyranny is a team sport. Unfortunately, because tyranny creates a state of war between men, the degree of cooperation is always uneasy, even amongst those individuals who comprise the despot’s side:

 

“Stupidity in a tyrant always renders him incapable of benevolent action; but in some mysterious way by dint of acting cruelly even toward those who are his closest associates, he seems to manifest what little intelligence he may have…That is why the majority of the dictators of former days were commonly slain by their closest favorites who, observing the nature of tyranny, could not be so confident of the whim of the tyrant as they were distrustful of his power.”

 

Put another way, tyrants always eat their own. They have to, because they are incapable of trusting anyone, even though many times they try to invoke that noble concept when they attempt to inculcate loyalty in their subjects. Ironically, Boétie argues that the ostracism levied by the people is not laid at the feet of the tyrant, necessarily, but upon the shoulders of his cohorts:

 

“Actually the people never blame the tyrant for the evils they suffer, but they do place responsibility on those who influence him…This is the glory and honor heaped upon influential favorites for their services by people who, if they could tear apart their living bodies, would still clamor for more, only half satiated by the agony they might behold. For even when the favorites are dead those who live after are never too lazy to blacken the names of these man-eaters with the ink of a thousand pens, tear their reputations into bits in a thousand books, and drag, so to speak, their bones past posterity, forever punishing them after their death for their wicked lives.”

 

You would think that those who seek to benefit from the suffering of others, by way of government, would pause before they acted, given that they are at much greater risk of scorn and ridicule, but, alas, such would not seem to be the case.

Having sung his praises thus far, I will now attempt to judge whether Boétie should be admonished for lacking the courage of his convictions. He first says:

 

“Place on one side fifty thousand armed men, and on the other the same number; let them join in battle, one side fighting to retain its liberty, the other to take it away; to which would you, at a guess, promise victory? Which men do you think would march more gallantly to combat – those who anticipate as a reward for their suffering the maintenance of their freedom, or those who cannot expect any other prize for the blows exchanged than the enslavement of others?”

 

So far so good, right? This would be something that citizen soldiers, security teams, or monkey-wrenchers could get behind:

 

“One side will have before its eyes the blessings of the past and the hope of similar joy in the future; their thoughts dwell less on the comparatively brief pain of battle than on what they may have to endure forever, they, their children, and all their posterity. The other side has nothing to inspire it with courage except the weak urge of greed, which fades before danger and which can never been so keen, it seems to me, that it will not be dismayed by the least drop of blood from wounds.”

 

No problem thus far, especially with its accurate description of the Standing Army, especially with their “revenue generation” at the side of the road. Yet, Boétie says the following:

 

“Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.”

 

According to this line of reasoning, starving the State is sufficient for defeating it, thus rendering the need to smash the State as unnecessary, or so Boétie would have us believe. By invoking the right of revolution, yet downplaying the necessity for it, does indeed beg the question of whether Boétie is contradicting himself. Perhaps an answer to this question can be answered by what Boétie said next:

 

“If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be read to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life too unendurable and death itself a deliverance?”

 

Ah, there you have it — Boétie’s method of non serviam is based on a matter of degree within the right of revolution, much like Henry Thoreau. In other words, for those individuals who are not yet hardened along the right side of the other (not so) thin line, this consolation Boétie gives them is their opportunity to participate in a resistance effort, albeit it in a rather limited manner. He further says:

 

“You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that they may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check.”

 

Again, Boétie is trying to get it through the reader’s possibly thick skull that tyrants don’t understand the concept of limits; they will take, and take, and take from you until there is literally nothing left (and, quite possibly, they’ll try to take some more, anyway). Boétie’s diatribe comes to a crescendo when he says:

 

“From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?”

 

I don’t know about being freed once you’ve resolved to serve no more, but what I will say is that it is a good first step along the thin line, yet I feel compelled to add that starving Leviathan, most importantly, is a state of mind whereby you’ve made the commitment to stop acquiescing to it. Just as you would stop accepting the handouts and benefits from the welfare state, refusing to serve government is a necessary condition before you start resisting it as a way of life.

There are some other thoughts on my mind I would like to address here with regards to Boétie and his essay on obedience to government:

 

  • First, Boétie was not a contemporary of Frédéric Bastiat; Boétie died in 1563, 238 years before Bastiat’s birth in 1801.
  • Second, it is more than likely than Thoreau read Boétie, which would mean that the contemporary notion of “civil disobedience” did not begin in mid-19th century America, but rather in late 16th century France.
  • Third, Boétie’s constant references about “a single tyrant” are really only applicable to monarchical governments, and thus is not useful for those of us who are experiencing a subversion of republican government, for the very simple reason that there are many tyrants in our situation, not just one tyrant who comes prepackaged with his own entourage of suck-ups.
  • Fourth, Boétie’s method presumes that if you just starve Leviathan, then that is sufficient in fulfilling your duty to oppose it. I inherently disagree, because one must be willing and able to likewise smash Leviathan, thus, I think that if you really want to end tyranny, then it is your sworn duty to both starve and smash Leviathan.
  • Fifth, saying “no” to government agents or their statist sycophants is really only helpful on an individual, case-by-case basis. Even though I’m a big advocate of the power of non-compliance, I have no illusions about what it cannot do, and what it can’t do is topple tyrannical government, at least, not by itself.
  • Sixth, and more importantly, I fear that Boétie’s technique might very well be nothing more than a fallacious justification for the myth of the line in the sand. I say that because Boétie left it nebulous as to under what conditions men should begin resisting tyrants. Granted, I’m not asking for particulars, but I am asking for roadsigns, as John Locke provided.

 

Fundamentally, civil disobedience, which is what Boétie is really describing here, is ineffective as a strategy for achieving liberty because it relies upon the theory of critical mass, but as a tactic, it can be effective in some circumstances for particular individuals, provided they are able and willing to violate mala prohibita, of course.

Étienne de La Boétie’s The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is a earlier literary piece on civil disobedience, with an emphasis on how social engineering curtails subjugated men from exercising their common right of revolution. As Boétie concludes his piece by saying:

 

“As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to a generous and loving God as tyranny — I believe He as reserved, in a separate spot in Hell, some very special punishment for tyrants and their accomplices.”

 

I certainty hope so, too, lest what we have been struggling for thus far has been all done in vain. Regardless, no amount of David Icke’s “non-comply-dance” is going to set us free, especially if you’re not even free inside your head first. If, however, you are ready for the next step in setting yourself free, then I would encourage you to read A Recent History of the Libertarian Position on Self-Defense for understanding why we all should take self-defense seriously.

Sovereign Citizens Prefer to Blame the Victims of Statism

Today’s meme highlights the confusion that sovereign citizens and their cohorts like to sow in the minds of their audiences through magical thinking is by claiming that the reason we’re all being tyrannized is because all of us unknowingly acquiesced in reaping the benefits from invisible contracts (all due credit belongs to Christopher Cantwell for this meme).

 

Ernie Tertelgte Does Not Understand Montana Law

Every once is a while, someone will gain notoriety for litigating their own mala prohibita case in a sensationalistic manner. By telling libertarians and constitutionalists what they want to hear, such persons make fools of themselves and their supporters when they say things that are provably untrue all the while mouthing off to government agents in order to look good for the cameras. Even those who benefit from Leviathan certainly deserve a good scolding, but doing so in the context of litigation (and an incompetent one, at that) only serves to further marginalize everyone else by association who are attempting to secure their Liberty.

 

Ernie Wayne Tertelgte

 

You may have of heard of the above-pictured individual, one Ernie Wayne Tertelgte. This is the man up in Montana who was arrested last year on two charges of fishing without a license and for resisting arrest. Tertelgte gained Internet notoriety for yelling at Judge Wanda Drusch that he was a “living, natural man” and not “the corporate fiction” that she and other government agents were allegedly acting upon.

What is not as well known is why Tertelgte believes this to be the truth. If anybody bothered to watch this street rally Tertelgte participated in outside the Three Forks City Hall, you’d see his cardboard protest sign, which read:

 

Your Natural Name = “Evidence”: “Non-fiction” = Living Free Person; = You Own Your Proper Name, and are Eternal Trustee thru Universal Right to Life Natural Laws;

VS.

Any A P P E A R A N C E in A L L C A P I T A L L E T T E R S Of “T H A T” Which is N ever Your N A M E = “P R O O F” = “F I C T I O N” = “P R O P E R T Y,” Invented & C O P Y R I G H T E D (S.S.#) By and For VATICAN CROWN/CAESAR = “G R A N D  I D E N T I T Y  T H E F T;” and You Never, Ever, are “I TSTrustee!

“Render unto Caesar “T H A T” which is Caesar’s; But unto God That which is Life!!”

 

You see, this is what happens when you believe in the STRAWMAN hypothesis and the corporate UNITED STATES myth; you act like a lunatic in public. Any ridicule you incur from doing so is well deserved, especially so on this subject matter that spews propaganda that is just about as true as the government’s official story on a number of events. Apparently, Tertelgte and those other people at that rally outside city hall have been taken in hook, line, and sinker by the oxymoronic sovereign citizens.

In any case, Tertelgte went on to record a vlog whereby he makes the following claims:

 

“In Montana, our state law here, which I have right here for direct reference, mandates that every official, regardless of capacity, that holds any office, first, must recite an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Montana, and, that upon demand, any official must produce that evidence of that oath immediately. It should be memorized, they should have it tucked in their pocket, in their wallet, somewhere on them, and any time you as a citizen, an individual, say, ‘You know, I want to know that your office is actual; let me see that oath, let me hear you say it.’ That official, as far as Montana is concerned, is totally required to produce it just the instant you ask for it.”

 

Tertelgte then goes on to cite his direct reference as “CF 37-61-207,” which he repeats twice and then reads the following exactly:

 

Oath. Every person on admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and The Constitution of the State of Montana and to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney with fidelity to the best of the person’s knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath must be endorsed upon the license and a duplicate filed with the clerk.”

 

After claiming that this was taken from the 2011 edition of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), Tertelgte continues on with his little tirade, but I hope you’ve realized some immediate problems here. I use this as an example of when someone grossly overstretches whatever the law says in a very limited circumstance in order to suit their own personal agenda.

First, there is no “CF” designation within the MCA that I can find; I think it would be more accurate to assume that it’s a § number. Second, although Tertelgte did correctly read off MCA § 37-61-207, he oh-so-conveniently left out the context of this statutory reference, namely, Title 37 – Professions & Occupations, Chapter 61 – Attorneys at Law, Part 2 – Licensing; in other words, MCA § 37-61-207 is applicable only to attorneys who are licensed to practice law, and you can tell this when it says “Every person on admission,” which presumably means, every person on admission to the state bar of Montana shall take an oath, and so forth (that’s why MCA § 37-61-207 goes on to mention about “faithfully discharging the duties of an attorney;” how could a cop, a bureaucrat, or any other non-lawyer government agent faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney?). Third, and most importantly, there is no requirement in MCA § 37-61-207 for a lawyer, much less any “public official,” that they “must produce that evidence of that oath immediately” upon the demand of any citizen.

Simply put, Tertelgte is completely wrong when he blabbed, that in regards to their oaths of office, that Montana government agents are “totally required to produce it just the instant you ask for it.” Tertelgte negligently overstretched the applicability of MCA § 37-61-207 when he expanded it to somehow mean all government officials, instead of just lawyers, as well as inventing out of whole cloth this totally bogus claim that all these agents must produce a copy of their oaths upon demand. IF there does turn out to be such a requirement elsewhere in the MCA, that’s one thing, but I can say with confidence that there is no such requirement for lawyers, much less any other Montana government agent, to produce such a thing on demand, at least according to MCA § 37-61-207.

In 1998, Richard McDonald said:

 

“Don’t do emotion, ok? Law, read the law, the law says ‘rebuttable presumption.’ Stick with the law, you can never go wrong. See, if you step off and put your own words into the law, the judge is gonna come down on you like a house of fire.”

 

That is exactly what this so-called “natural, living man” is doing here; Tertelgte is putting his own words into the law! If you are going to play the reformist game, then you are agreeing to play within the government’s own rules; if you are able to legally subvert them and turn them in your favor, then you can do that because that’s what the government’s own attorneys do all the damn time, but you cannot just fucking make shit up. Tertelgte is attempting to emotionally manipulate you with all of his “natural, living man” polemics, which itself is fundamentally based on the corporate UNITED STATES myth, anyway! I would suggest you take Richard McDonald’s admonishment seriously if you ever want to legally contest the government in its own courts, instead of acting like an incompetent buffoon.

Hold On to Your Kids?

If you’ve ever been around Millennials or their children, you’ll understand that consumer electronics are ubiquitous with them. Unfortunately, the misuse of this technology, coupled with social engineering, has served to incrementally dehumanize them into apathetic drones for the State. Worse for Americans culturally in the long run, is not violently abusive childrearing, necessarily, but negligently ignorant parenting, whereby children are rendered emotionally numb as a response to how their parents treat them as mere annoyances on a daily basis.

 

 

The writers of this parenting book argue that many of today’s children are emotionally attaching to their chronological peers rather than their own biological parents. As Drs. Neufeld and Maté say:

 

“It is the thesis of this book that the disorder affecting the generations of young children and adolescents now heading toward adulthood is rooted in the lost orientation of children toward the nurturing adults in their lives. Far from seeking to establish yet one more medical-psychological disorder here – the last thing today’s bewildered parents need – we are using the word disorder in its most basic sense: a disruption of the natural order of things. For the first time in history young people are turning for instruction, modeling, and guidance not to mothers, fathers, teachers, and other responsible adults but to people whom nature never intended to place in a parenting role – their own peers. They are not manageable, teachable, or maturing because they no longer take their cues from adults. Instead, children are being brought up by immature persons who cannot possibly guide them to maturity. They are being brought up by each other. The term that seems to fit more than any other for this phenomenon is peer orientation. It is peer orientation that has muted our parenting instincts, eroded our natural authority, and caused us to parent not from the heart but from the head – from manuals, the advice of ‘experts,’ and the confused expectations of society.”

 

Weird as that may sound, that is the foundation upon which Neufeld & Maté’s book rests upon. How is it even conceivable, though, for such a state of affairs to have manifested in the first place? The authors claim that:

 

“Society has generated economic pressure for both parents to work outside the home when children are very young, but it has made little provision for the satisfaction of children’s needs for emotional nourishment… [a] gaping attachment void has been created by the loss of extended family. Children often lack close relationships with older generations – people who, for much of human history, were often better able than parents themselves to offer the unconditional loving acceptance that is the bedrock of emotional security. The reassuring, consistent presence of grandparents and aunts and uncles, the protective embrace of the multigenerational family, is something few children nowadays are able to enjoy.”

 

I don’t think it’s as much a matter of “society” doing anything of its own accord, rather, I would attribute this phenomenon to the Federal Reserve Bank. It is they who have devalued their own Federal Reserve Notes by well over 96% since the central bank was founded back in 1913 as per the Federal Reserve Act. If you were to couple this with the systematic deindustrialization of the country alongside the increasing urbanization percentage at ~ 82% of the total population, as greater numbers of people are chasing ever lesser numbers of dollars (in terms of its purchasing power) within the money supply, I think you can begin to see that “society” has very little to do with what has created such “economic pressure for both parents to work outside the home.” Of course, conspicuous consumption simply exacerbates this horrid situation:

 

“Our society puts a higher value on consumerism than the healthy development of children. For economic reasons, the natural attachments of children to their parents are actively discouraged. As a family physician, my cowriter often found himself in the ludicrous position of having to write letters to employers justifying on ‘health’ grounds a woman’s decision to stay home an extra few months following her baby’s birth so that she could breast-feed – an essential physiological need of the infant, but also a potent natural attachment function in all mammalian species, especially in human beings. It is for economic reasons that parenting does not get the respect it should. That we live where we do rather than where our natural supporting cast – friends, the extended family, our communities of origin – has come about for economic reasons, often beyond the control of individual parents, as, for example, when whole industries are shut down or relocated. It is for economic reasons that we build schools too large for connection to happen and that we have classes too large for children to receive individual attention.”

 

If you want yet another reason to resist the social engineers, it’s because they are deliberately targeting your families for summary destruction through full spectrum domination, one series of techniques being economic, including also the U.S. federal income tax, which has been admitted by Beardsley Ruml, who back in 1946, said was already obsolete, at least, in terms of being necessary revenue.

Why is peer orientation a threat to family bonding? There are multiple reasons why; the foundational reason seems to emanate from the very environment government schools create:

 

“A dangerous educational myth has arisen that children learn best from their peers. They do, partially because peers are easier to emulate than adults but mostly because children have become so peer-oriented…[i]n short, what they learn is how to conform and imitate.”

 

This myth is one that homeschoolers have had to contend with incessantly, because opponents to homeschooling like to dishonestly assert that homeschooled children are failing to socialize “properly.” Besides the irony of this bald faced lie, it would seem that Neufeld & Maté argue that if anything, the completely opposite is true, primarily because of the increased susceptibility government school children have to being emotionally attached to their classmates (in other words, homeschooled children presumably are much more emotionally attached to their parents who cared about them enough to homeschool them in the first place). Then, there is the rampant bullying to contend with:

 

“Peer orientation breeds both bullies and their victims. We have been dangerously naïve in thinking that by putting children together we would foster egalitarian values and relating. Instead we have paved the way for the formation of new and damaging attachment hierarchies. We are creating a community that sets the stage for a Lord of the Flies situation. Peer orientation is making orphans of our children and turning our schools into day orphanages, so to speak. School is now a place where peer-oriented children are together, relatively free of adult supervision, in the lunchrooms, halls and schoolyards. Because of the powerful attachment reorganization that takes place in the wake of peer orientation, schools have also become bully factories – unwittingly and inadvertently but still tragically.”

 

Ah, so the truth emerges at last. Many political dissidents understood this at one level or another, but this is a pretty clear way of outlining the inherently Orwellian nature of government schooling, that is, squish all the children together where they have the absolutely lowest possibility of genuinely socializing with many different types of people, and then claim that artificially sticking them together with people just like themselves with increase their ability to socialize! Gee, I wonder when was the last time a homeschooler ever experienced a serious bullying problem? As FakeSagan has said, government schools are just like government prisons, which is why there is systematic bullying. With regard to reckless promiscuity, the authors maintain that:

 

“One of the ultimate costs of emotional hardening is that sex loses its potency as a bonding agent. The long-term effect is soul-numbing, impairing young people’s capacity to enter into relationships in which true contact and intimacy are possible. Sex eventually becomes a nonvulernable attachment activity. It can even be addictive because it momentarily pacifies attachment hunger without ever fulfilling it. The divorce of sex from vulnerability may have a liberating effect on sexual behavior, but it derives from a dark place of emotional desensitization.”

 

Oh, great; now for the low, low budget price of sacrificing your child’s soul, they too can experience the wonderfulness of casual sex when they possess neither the maturity nor the temperament for it (at this point, may I suggest polyamory as a viable alternative to so-called “serial monogamy?”). Birth control pills and condoms only handle half of the problem; the other half is emotional, not physical, despite what the “safe sex” advocates may have you believe. Sadly, the authors spend over 200 pages of their book complaining about these and many other problems that result from peer orientation (even one Amazon.com reviewer agreed with me on this), and their analysis about the increased violence, increased alienation, and increased substance abuse is not what I want to focus on in this book review.

So, what does the dynamic duo recommend parents to do, strategically speaking? As they say:

 

“In short, we need to build routines of collecting our children into our daily lives. In addition to that, it is especially important to reconnect with them after any sort of emotional separation. The sense of connection may be broken, say, after a fight or argument, whether by distancing, misunderstanding, or anger. The context for parenting is lost until we move to restore what psychologist Gershon Kaufman has called ‘the interpersonal bridge.’ And rebuilding that bridge is always our responsibility. We can’t expect children to do it – they are not mature enough to understand the need for it.”

 

Ok, so good so far (at least, with regards to making goals, that is), but what is their attitude towards discipline? Now, it is important to remember that Drs. Neufeld & Maté take a rather dim view of any notion of “punishment” when it comes to disciplining:

 

“Punishment creates an adversarial relationship and incurs emotional hardening. Time-outs teach a lesson, ‘tough love’ to bring behavior into line, and ‘1-2-3 Magic’ to make kids comply are tactics that strain the relationship. When we ignore a child in response to a tantrum, isolate the misbehaving child, or withdraw our affection, we undermine a child’s sense of security.”

 

That’s rather interesting; might it be possible that even peaceful parenting advocates disagree with each other as to what to do? In that case, let’s first take a look at two methods Neufeld & Maté don’t approve of. First up, is grounding:

 

“Grounding continues to be a popular discipline for young adolescents when some rule has been broken or violation has occurred. It’s a question of how we use it – as punishment or as an opportunity…grounding works best with those who need it least and is least effective with those who need it most. But under any circumstances, grounding, if we are to employ it at all, works best if parents seize it as an opportunity to reestablish the relationship with their child. And that means taking all punitive tone and emotion out of the interaction.”

 

Ha! For those friends of mine during my Boy Scout days who were frequently grounded, the dynamic duo here would have had a serious problem with their parents! Next up are the weakly sounding time-outs:

 

“Separation has always been the trump card in parenting. Today it has been elevated to a fad in the guise of time-out’s. Stripped of euphemistic labels, these tools of behavior modification are recycled forms of shunning – isolation, ignoring, cold shoulder, the withholding of affection…[t]he withdrawal of closeness (or threatening its loss) is such an effective means of behavior control because it triggers the child’s worst fear – that of being abandoned…[t]he point for parents to understand is that these manifestations do not represent genuine understanding or contrition, only the anxiety of the child trying to reestablish the relationship with the parent. It is naïve to think that by such methods we are teaching our children a lesson or making them consider the error of their ways.”

 

Whoa, that is a pretty clear stance they’re taking on that method, but I have to ask, doesn’t that contradict what Dr. Murray Straus said in his book? If Neufeld & Maté are correct, then why would Straus recommend something to his readers that is arguably just as bad, if not worse, than spanking itself? Besides the fact that even the scientific community has called the efficacy of time-outs into question, I wonder whether I have stumbled onto something significant here, or whether its one of those useless “debates” that are incessant ongoing because there is currently no good answer? I suspect it may have either to do with their differing political orientations (Straus advocates government intervention, whereas Neufeld & Maté advocate that parents need to take responsibility for their own children), or quite possibly, that neither camp knows exactly what the hell they are doing.

Having perused what not to do, what should parents do in order to “collect their children?” As Neufeld & Maté describe it:

 

“The first step in creating this kind of closeness is to draw the child out. Although many children need an invitation, asking them what they think and feel seldom works. Sometimes the trick is in finding the right kind of structure: regular outings together, shared tasks, walking the dog. With my mother, it was when we were washing the dishes or picking blueberries together that I would share the thoughts and feelings that hardly ever came out otherwise. The closeness I felt at those times was very special indeed and went a long way to create an enduring connection.”

 

I remember doing similar things with my mother; have things gotten so bad here on this continent that children nowadays commonly don’t even have that to fall back on? As they elaborate:

 

“The sit-down family meal has become an endangered event. When it exists, it is more likely to be a perfunctory activity for the purpose of fueling up. There are places to go, work to be done, sports to be played, computers to sit at, stuff to buy, movies to take in, television to be watched. Eating is what one does to prepare for what comes next. Rarely do these other activities enable us to collect our children. Precisely now, when we need the family sit-down meal more than ever before, we’re likely to eat on our own and allow our children to do the same. Of course, mealtimes that are tense, that end up in fights or set the stage for arguments about manners or who should clear the table will not serve a collecting function. Parents need to use meals to get into their children’s space in a friendly way.”

 

That’s bullshit, at least when I was growing up. I grew up with family dinners, which I greatly disliked for awhile because of dad’s foul mood swings, but overall, they weren’t too bad. Hell, I still remember mom reading us her political newsletters at the table, and those were fun (at least, for me, anyway). Earlier in the book, the authors mentioned that peer-oriented children are scared to death of vulnerability, and since they are so highly aggressive because they don’t know how to diffuse their frustration, parents need to help them come to terms with their frustrations:

 

“The first part of this dance of adaptation is to represent to the child a ‘wall of futility’ …[t]he second part of the adaptation dance is to come alongside the child’s experience of frustration and to provide comfort. Once the wall of futility has been established – in a way that is firm without being harsh – it is time to help the child find the tears beneath the frustration. The agenda should not be to teach a lesson but to move frustration to sadness.”

 

Good luck with that one; sounds more like art than science to me. Although the authors go on to give redundantly long descriptions about the techniques of calmly explaining to a child what he did wrong, scripting their behavior by providing behavioral cues, and establishing a ritualistic structure for their daily routine, I can’t help but think they are suggesting what mom did most of the time with me and my siblings; of course, we were spanked (some more than others), but most of my childhood encompassed these techniques, at worst sometimes being emotionally manipulative, but seldom physically punitive, as is the case with corporal punishment; despite this, I will infer that mom would still not be considered a “peaceful parent” by either Neufeld or Straus because spanking was still on the table for her. Finally, the last technique up for consideration is that of forming what they call an attachment village:

 

“The attachment village was a place of adult orientation where culture and values were passed on vertically from one generation to the next and in which, for better or worse, children followed the lead of grown-ups. For many of us, that attachment village no longer exists. The social and economic underpinnings that used to support traditional cultures have vanished. Gone are the cohesive communities, where extended families lived in close proximity, where children grew up among mentoring adults who did their work close to home, where cultural activities brought together generations. Most of us share the task of raising our children with adults neither we nor our children have previously met. The majority of children in North America leave their homes almost every day to go to places where adults with whom they have no attachment connection assume responsibility for them…[i]f we wish to reclaim our children from peer orientation or prevent them from becoming peer-oriented, we have only one other option: to re-create functional villages of attachment within which to raise our child.”

 

It takes a village to raise a child, doesn’t it? Maybe if you’re anarcho-syndicalist or authoritarian statist, but pretty much not for most of everybody else, from what I understand. Sure, extended family is important, but there is such a thing as overkill. Again, if there wasn’t such a need for geographic mobility because of economic reasons, with the ridiculous high urbanization percentage along with it, then Americans could easily reestablish their local communities in a small town atmosphere, once the physical infrastructure has been altered to accommodate that new reality of life.

Interestingly, Dr. Neufeld relates to us his personal struggles with his own children. As he says:

 

“I, too, buried my head in the sand until my own children abruptly disrupted my denial. I had never expected to lose my kids to their peers. To my dismay, I noticed that on reaching adolescence both my older daughters began to orbit around their friends, following their lead, imitating their language, internalizing their values. It became more and more difficult to bring them into line. Everything I did to impose my wishes and expectations only made things worse. It’s as if the parental influence my wife and I had taken for granted had all of a sudden evaporated. Sharing our children is one thing, being replaced is quite another. I thought my children were immune: they showed no interest in gang or delinquency, were brought up in the context of relative stability with an extended family that dearly loved them, lived in a solid family-oriented community, and had not had their childhood disrupted by a major world war…[y]et when I started putting the pieces together, I found that what was happening with my children was more typical than exceptional.”

 

Alright, so he admits he lost touch with his own flesh and blood. The question then becomes, was he able to remedy it, and if so, how? He describes that he was able to woo his way back into the good graces of his daughters Tasha and Tamara on separate outdoorsy vacations by walking and canoeing with the former at a seaside cottage, while backpacking and fishing with the latter. When his third daughter, Bria, wanted to host a party for her friends, Dr. Neufeld details that:

 

“When we presented our plan to be active and visible hosts, Bria’s first reaction was to be mortified! She doubted it would ever work. She feared that none of her friends would come and that if they did would never talk to her again. Her fears were unfounded. I certainly was not able to make inroads with everyone, but I doubt the ones I failed with would ever have been inclined to show up anyway. The kids it worked out with were much more likely to seek the kind of relationship with our daughter that would not compete with us.”

 

A-ha! So, Dr. Neufeld’s insistence on personally hosting the party by barbecuing the food and making small talk with Bria’s friends actually served as an effective vetting mechanism to weed all out the undesirables and assorted malcontents who would be inclined to lead Bria astray by eventually putting her at odds with her parents. Following the successful outcome of this party, Dr. Neufeld also described this one:

 

“Village building worked better than I ever could have thought possible. The icing on the cake was Millennium New Year’s Eve. Before the event, each one of us in the family had shared our fantasies about what we would like to happen on this special evening and what we wanted it to mean. Bria’s fantasy was to be together with not only her best friends but her best friends’ families, including their guests. We invited them all under one roof and spent the evening enjoying one another’s company. We toasted the young women who inspired us to create a village from the bottom up, creating connections that otherwise would never have existed. The event was testimony to the fact that when peers and parents don’t compete, our children can have both.”

 

While I am skeptical about the ability of Bria and one of her friends inspiring anyone “to create a village from the bottom up,” I will say that holidays provide a convenient social excuse to meet perfect strangers by arriving and making nice-nice, all the while eating as much food and downing as much alcohol you can politely get away with. Ironically, the dynamic duo also had this to say:

 

“We need strength to withstand the desperate pleadings of a peer-oriented child, to endure the inevitable upset and the storm of protest. Above all, we need faith in ourselves as our child’s best bet. It helps to have some conceptual support for your own parental intuition – and this book is meant to provide that – but it still requires courage to go against the flow. We do not recommend that parents accept our suggestions until they have the confidence, the patience, and the warmth to follow through with them. One must not parent a child from a book – not even this one!”

 

Despite explaining in quite a bit of detail how to calmly explain a situation to your child, how to script their behavior, how to establish a ritualistic structure for them to follow, as well as how to form “attachment villages” with a supporting cast who accept your passing of the baton to them while you defuse any potential competition (as what happened with Bria in the first described party), it might as well be all for naught because the authors both say that the reader must not parent from any book. Well, that’s just fuckin’ great, isn’t it? With sophisticated advice like that, I will just go ahead and assume that the spanking will continue unabated, despite their intention to curb it…wait a minute, I don’t remember either Neufeld or Maté mentioning spanking at all! Isn’t that a bit queer? At least deMause mentioned it in passing in his book regarding historical child abuse, but hey, I’m just a clueless reader to them, aren’t I?

Drs. Neufeld & Maté’s Hold Onto Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More Than Peers is an enigma wrapped inside of a pretzel. Aside from a few choice methods that they could have easily fit within the space of say, five pages, Neufeld & Maté instead redundantly repeat themselves so much that I suspect they were advised to by the publisher, lest they lack sufficient page space in order to cover publishing costs. Because of this, as well as the tone, I am left to conclude that the polemics spouted by them are evocative of Douglas Rushkoff (albeit these two at least suggest something halfway plausible, to be fair). At least Dr. Straus provided his readers with actual statistics, for whatever they’re worth, instead of a rambling diatribe against other children. Most importantly, though, is that I fear the “peaceful parenting” advocates are inadvertently perpetuating the victim mentality in their readership by stressing the horrors of corporal punishment or artificial cultural dynamics rather than outlining a strategy or two describing how certain tactics should be used to accomplish a specific goal, namely, that of a cohesive family.

Litigation “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “litigation” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

LITIGATION

An action or suit; a series or group of related suits or actions.

 

LITIGATE

To go to law; to maintain or defend an action as a party thereto; to sue or to be sued.

 

LITIGANT

A person engaged in a litigation; a party to a suit or action.

 

(Bouvier’s)

LITIGATION

  1. A contest authorized by law, in a court of justice, for the purpose of enforcing a right.
  2. In order to prevent injustice, courts of equity will restrain a party from further litigation, by a writ of inunction; for example, after two verdicts on trials at bar, in favor of the plaintiff, a perpetual injunction was decreed [Str. 404]. And not only between two individuals will a court of equity grant this relief, as in the above case of several ejectments, but also, when one general-legal right, as a right of fishery, is claimed against several, distinct persons, in which case there would be no end of bringing actions, since each action would only bind the particular right in question, between the plaintiff and defendant in such action, without deciding the general right claimed [2 Atk. 484; 2 Ves. jr. 587. Vide Circuity of Actions].

 

LITIGANT

One engaged in a suit; one fond of litigation.

 

(Black’s)

LITIGATION

A judicial controversy. A contest in a court of justice, for the purpose of enforcing a right.

 

LITIGATE

To dispute or contend in form of law; to carry on a suit.

 

LITIGANT

A party to a lawsuit; one engaged in litigation; usually spoken of active parties, not of nominal ones.

 

(Webster’s)

LIT’IGATE, v.t. [L. litigo, from lis, litis, a contest or debate.]

To contest in law; to prosecute or defend by pleadings, exhibition of evidence, and judicial debate; as, to litigate a cause or a question.

 

LIT’IGATE, v.i.

To dispute in law; to carry on a suit by judicial process.

Esquire “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “esquire” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):

 

 

(Ballantine’s)

The term is applied to barristers-at-law, and in the United States it is customary to append the title to attorneys at law in addressing them by letter.

Blackstone has said it is a matter somewhat unsettled what constitutes the distinction between a gentleman, and an esquire, or who is a real esquire [see 1 Bl Comm 406].

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. A title applied by courtesy to officers of almost every description, to members of the bar, and others. No one is entitled to it by law, and, therefore, it confers, no distinction in law.
  2. In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden reckons up four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds:
      1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession.
      2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession.
      3. Esquires created by the king’s letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons.
      4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.

(Black’s)

In English law, a title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace and others [1 Bl. Comm. 406; 3 Steph. Comm. 15, note; Tomlins; on the use of this term in American law, particularly as applied to justices of the peace and other inferior judicial officers, see Call v. Foresman, 5 Watts (Pa.) 331; Christian v. Ashley County, 24 Ark. 151; Com. v. Vance, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 37].

 

(Webster’s)

ESQUI’RE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. A hide, of which shields were anciently made].

A shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight.

  • In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king’s courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen.
  • In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. Indeed the title, in addressing letters, is bestowed on any person at pleasure, and contains no definite description. It is merely an expression of respect.

ESQUI’RE, v.t.

To attend; to wait on.