A Primer on State Citizenship

[Download a PDF of this article]

One of the nasty side effects of a sensationalistic news cycle is subtly encouraging the victim mentality, whereby absent the rationality necessary to analyze tyranny and brainstorm how to defeat it, the misinformation spouted by some individuals who claim to know the spirit of the law tends to lend a superficial credence to the myth of the “Great Loophole.” As such, applying the scientific method to politics is easier said than done. Taking responsibility for your future means coming to terms with your present, and in order to do that, you must first accept the mistakes of your past.

 

 

As I’ve written about before, the consent of the governed is an idea of weighty significance in the field of political philosophy. Scholars have debated the matter, politicians have scoffed at it, and comrades have waged revolutions over their own interpretations of it; so, it is of no small importance. Although it has been argued that such consent of the governed is strictly collective in nature, what if such consent were also individual as well? John Locke wrote:

 

“[T]hat every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether it be his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government…so that whenever the owner, who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to the government, will, by donation, sale, or otherwise, quit the said possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other common-wealth; or to agree with others to begin a new one, in vacuis locis, in any part of the world, they can find free and unpossessed.”

 

Notice the phrasing Locke uses here – every man; his tacit consent; he is at liberty – I’m having a hard time seeing anything other than third-person singular words being used here, don’t you? Of course, it is equally arguable that the consent of the governed is strictly individualistic; yet, if it were, then that would suggest that each and every one of us who has acquiesced to despotism is individually responsible for sanctioning tyranny. Regardless, if there exists an aspect of the consent of the governed that is in any way individualistic, whether that be strictly by itself, or in conjunction with the citizenry in common, then it falls upon each man to determine to what extent he has tolerated the habitually oppressive actions of tyrants.

Assuming that Locke was still correct about explicit consent versus acquiescence, then what evidence is there to judge the current condition of an individual’s consent to be governed? Might I suggest that, perhaps, it is the status of citizenship that tells us whether or not an individual has consented to be governed? If you think about it, if a native-born American expatriates to Brazil, then he is no longer obligated to obey any American laws (although, to be sure, he is expected to now abide by Brazilian law). What I am proposing here, is, what if the social contract is foundationally rooted in citizenship?

Consider, for a moment, your legal identification documents. Everything, from your birth certificate to your Social Security card, and your driver’s license to your passport, was issued by a government agency of some kind. Whom, specifically, was it issued by? And more importantly, what are the laws or rules governing the nature of your legal relationship with these governmental entities?

Believe it or not, there are currently fifty-one American constitutions; namely, the United States Constitution, and the fifty state constitutions. Each constitution has its own proper sphere of applicability, whether it be in criminal or civil law. If you are charged with violating federal law, you would not use the Bill of Rights from the Iowa Constitution as part of your legal defense; similarly, you should not use the Bill of Rights from the U.S. Constitution if you were charged with violating Kansas law. Relying solely on the federal constitution for every legal contrivance is a recipe for disaster.

Before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no such thing as a so-called “United States citizen.” Benjamin Franklin was not a United States citizen, he was a citizen of Pennsylvania. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not citizens of the United States, they were citizens of Virginia; the whole body politic of the early American republics were entirely composed of state citizens, not 14th Amendment citizens. The takeaway here is that, now, there are two classes of American citizenship; namely, citizens of the United States (that is, United States citizens), and Citizens of a State (that is, state citizens).

Evidence of these two classes are found in a series of United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as the U.S. Constitution itself. The Comity Clause (Art. IV § 2 cl. 1) says:

 

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

 

Right there, the federal constitution recognized the legal status of state citizenship. Ironically, the 14th Amendment, which created the class of United States citizens, also continues to recognize the original class of state citizens, by way of its Citizenship Clause (Amend. XIV § 1 cl. 1):

 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

 

Naturally, the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is open to interpretation, especially as to whom is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, but I digress. Constitutionally speaking, I think the evidence is pretty clear here about the legal standing of state citizenship from the federal government’s perspective. With regards to judicial opinions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, I would like to direct your attention to what Chief Justice Waite said in the 1874 Minor v. Happersett case:

 

“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” [emphasis added]

 

The Court pointed out here that not only was there a duty of protection to be given by the government, but, in exchange, a duty of allegiance to be given by the citizenry in kind. Interestingly, this is also the same Court that has ruled that state, county, and municipal police have no constitutional duty to protect you or your property, so putting these two facts together, it does beg the very uncomfortable question of whether citizens still owe a duty of allegiance to their governments at all. If you would like to examine in more detail the case law that proves the recognition of state citizens both before and after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, then please be sure to read my State Citizenship Casebook.

Unfortunately, it would seem to be the case that state citizens, and their respective constitutions, have been incrementally usurped by the federal government. Consider, for instance, the Tenth Amendment:

 

“The powers not delegated in the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

Now, compare the Tenth Amendment with the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment:

 

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

Did you notice how the wording of those three clauses only apply to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? In fact, over the course of a century, both before and after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Court has consistently ruled against the so-called “incorporation” of the federal Bill of Rights against the various state governments. This forceful application of the U.S. Constitution against the state governments, which began to gain steam during the 1960s, formed what the Court eventually called the doctrine of incorporation, which is based upon any combination of the Citizenship, Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, or Equal Protection clauses. This incorporation doctrine intrinsically violates the Comity Clause and the Tenth Amendment (not to say anything about stare decisis), and to make matters worse, the constitutionality of this usurpation is virtually impossible to litigate against, thanks to the formation of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance that Justice Brandeis wrote about in his concurring opinion of the 1936 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority case.

Ah, but the usurpations of the republican form of government that Americans were guaranteed in Article IV § 4 of the federal constitution do not stop there. After the conclusion of the War Between the States, the American Bar Association (ABA) was formed, ostensibly for the reason of increasing the quality of legal education in America, as well as advocating on behalf of allegedly “social justice” type political issues on the national stage. The ABA was also involved in the discussion and drafting of the legislation that soon became the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, thereby creating the unconstitutional fourth branch of government, as United States Senator Pat McCarran described it, according to the Congressional Record. Not too long after, the ABA was able to secure their monopoly on the practice of law by way of licensure, through co-opting the state governments into changing their statutory codes and judicial rules to narrowly define “acceptable” law schools as only those who were suck-ups to the ABA itself.

Resulting from all this was a gradual diminution of the old common law practice of reading law, whereby an individual became a lawyer by apprenticing under a judge for a period of time, thereby gaining not only knowledge, but also valuable work experience (the latter of which are typically unavailable to your average law school student). Not only that, but the increasing virulence of legalese was used by the ABA licensed bar attorneys to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate their tyrannical designs. As if that wasn’t horrid enough, these bar attorneys also advocated to further criminalize and outlaw previously lawful behavior, describing them collectively as so-called “victimless crimes,” despite the fact that this oxymoron concept had already been thoroughly debunked.

If any despotic special interest is more responsible for the tyrannical situation we find ourselves suffering under than even the central bankers, it would be, without a doubt, the bar attorneys. They are the ones who launch the unconstitutional military adventures abroad; they are the ones who have tempted the worst appetites of the human condition by systematically bribing the citizenry with stolen wealth; and they are the ones who give cover to the central bankers who inflate, debase, and ruin the currency with impunity.

Worse yet, the bar attorneys are the ones responsible for turning America into a police state. They gave rise to a bureaucracy that is impoverishing the citizenry by a million cuts; they issue orders to the Standing Army to beat us into submission to their arbitrary dictates; they have taxed, banned, or regulated nearly every vice imaginable at the point of the sword; they have infringed upon our right to travel upon the public highways; and should any of us run afoul of their nearly limitless “rules and regulations,” we are all too easily convicted and sent to rot in a government dungeon (which are profitable for them, yet overcrowded for us). Contemporary bar attorneys, for all intents and purposes, appear to imagine themselves to be our rulers, under the guise of “it’s the law!

You might be wondering, at this point, as to what are the implications of state citizenship? First, and most importantly, it presents a potential opportunity for greater freedom in your own life, and quite possibly, a unique way to escape government tyranny, absolutely and completely peacefully, without resorting to embarrassingly prostrating yourself before the lawyers or their bureaucrats. It means you don’t have any excuses anymore with regards to “waiting around” for “everyone else” to want to win their freedoms back, because you now have an endeavor that you can do all by yourself. Your consent to be governed is brought under your personal control, and is not subjected to the vested interests of other people who do not care about you.

I would also like to stress, here, what state citizenship is not. It is not the same as the oxymoronic “sovereign citizenship” I have previous debunked at length, or any of its variants. State citizenship is also not about what the Founders referred to as the “peculiar institution” of race slavery, which they inherited from the British Empire. Although it is true that the original state citizens were of a broad European ancestry, it is also consistent within the American tradition to welcome the assimilation of those who were willing to share in the common heritage, culture, and language of the nation; this can be observed from the assimilation of the tejanos and the Irish, especially those of the latter who were foreign born and naturalized.

What state citizenship is about, mainly centers around a more polycentric view of the law through a separation of powers within any government. By providing for checks and balances, not just between the different branches within a government, but also between the federal and various state governments, the Framers were able to codify, for perhaps the first time in written history, a form of polycentric law that struck at the root of statism; namely, monopoly courts and police. Sadly, too many people overlook this simple truth whenever they tend to demonize the ancestry of the original state citizens, instead of recognizing the sheer genius of their efforts in deliberately handicapping the capability of government to become despotic in the future.

Just how useful, though, is state citizenship to you? Unfortunately, in terms of it being a legal status on par with United States citizenship, it has been seldom litigated, to my knowledge. Another part of the problem lays in the fact that the court case precedent I’m familiar with has been mostly limited to the federal government, which does recognize state citizenship; this is nothing to say of the legal precedent within a particular state government’s case law. To determine that would certainly require further research into the legal precedent archived in any state judiciary’s law library. Furthermore, I’d say that you could file a Revocation of Power of Attorney with a county clerk, like Gary Hunt did back in 1992, but even he did not think it was useful as evidence of his standing in court, which is also why he believes that state citizenship is most useful as a tool to help move people along the other (not so) thin line towards a Lockean state of nature.

Sure, I guess you could file a revocation and litigate it in court, if you were willing to take the risk, should the government come after you about something. Or, you could join the Federalist Society, and read their suggested books and attend their lectures, for whatever good that’ll do you. Hell, you could simply mouth off to the judge in court about state citizenship just to watch him squirm, although the only value I can see from this would be strictly entertainment, and perhaps not even worthy of a contempt of court charge. All I can see that your best bet is, is to learn some basic skills, at least initially.

Pray tell, what skills am I suggesting you learn to cultivate? Well, the very first piece of advice I’ll offer is that you need to get at least one law dictionary, preferably three, and 19th century or older, if at all possible. The idea here is that you need to be able to cross-reference the definitions from these dictionaries, analyze the assumptions those definitions rest upon, and deduce the implications behind those definitions. Next, I would suggest that you learn how to conduct basic legal research by locating sources of law, and once you’ve got that down pat, then you will need to learn how to deconstruct legislative statutes as well as administrative regulations. Rounding out your basic training, as it were, you will also need to learn how to write case briefs on judicial decisions. Obviously, what I am advising you to do, at first, is to learn the law in an autodidactic manner (a mentor, who knows what he’s doing, would be even better, if you can find one).

For the next phase, you will actually have to come into contact with government employees; limited at first, and then finally in person, while under pressure. You will need to learn how to make inquires and write polite requests by mailing letters to bureaucrats; the idea here is not to pontificate about your interpretation of…whatever, but rather to acquire necessary information, or persuade the bureaucrat to act on your behalf, even if only indirectly. Also, you will need to learn how to draft and file formal legal instruments, such as petitions, notices, affidavits, revocations, and so forth. Finally, the biggest and most stressful type of skill you will need to eventually master is how to competently litigate in court. Learning the rules of court intimately, and practicing cross-examination in a mock trial are invaluable to increasing the probability that you will prevail, or at least mitigate the harm the government is causing you.

Speaking of court, an almost untouched upon topic within the alternative media is that of court transparency. Almost everybody and their uncle who consider themselves citizen-journalists are more than happy to go “copblocking,” but seldom are they willing to turn those same cameras against the bar attorneys (probably because it is less sensationalistic, I would guess). Granted, although there has been a very slow move to try and get cameras into the court room for public trials, what concerns me most is the sheer lack of documentation being made publicly available. Although Ian Bernard, to his credit, does release his court documents through Free Keene, almost nobody else I’ve noticed goes to that extent, not even Marc Stevens (at least, not consistently, anyway). The only reason any of us know about Larry Myers is because Gary Hunt kept studious documentation of each step along the way, and made it available for free download off the Internet; yet, the same cannot be said for Charles Dyer, despite the outpouring of non-existent “support” he allegedly enjoyed from people who were, in fact, running an activist legal defense fund scam, using what remained of his good name to sucker in the ignorant donators.

Again, you may be pondering, just how useful is the aforementioned skill set (as developed by modern state citizens) to you? Knowing what the law actually says could be useful to you if government employees attempt to intimidate you into “compliance” with their arbitrary demands. Mitigation of false arrests, property seizures, and maybe even wrongful injury could make the difference as to whether the government is able to cripple your ability to function, or not. A potential recruit to your local Committee of Safety could be adequately vetted if he were asked about his knowledge of state citizenship on a participation form, just like the Central Florida Committee of Safety did back in the 1990s.

State citizenship, first and foremost, was one of the most poignant attempts at decentralizing government power for the benefit of the people; however, it was usurped by those whose lust for power knew no bounds. While it might be possible to win your freedom back using their own laws against them, the nitty-gritty details for how to specifically do that lie in your responsibility to perform your own due diligence. Remember, the bar attorneys are the sworn enemies of the state citizens, so don’t try to play the game until you know how to bend the rules in your favor, and ultimately, for the cause of Liberty.

The Bridges Of Old Mexico

Apparently, a pseudonymous individual has rewritten the lyrics to Merle Haggard’s The Seashores of Old Mexico, in response to the deteriorating situation on the southern United States border.  

 

 

We left, out of Dallas, with critical choke points to find.
We were sick of illegals and had a solution in mind.
They come for siestas, new victims, welfare
And it’s damn sure out of control,
So this year there’s gonna be fireworks… on the bridges of old Mexico.

Our first night in Chihuahua, command says it’s time to commence.
Transport, communications, explosives and intelligence.
So we kept on movin’; it’s too late to turn back…
The invasion refuses to slow.
Yea, it’s gonna get Western for Paco…on the bridges of old Mexico.

We split into four teams outside a small town I can’t say,
We moved incognito right out in the middle of day.
Down through Durango, Guadalahara, Morelia
Then into the canyons we go
Where we laid up to do our last recon… of the bridges of old Mexico.

After final instructions, we hit our objectives at night.
We set our shaped charges undetected in pale moonlight.
We heard the train comin’
Then we let explosives blow,
And soon it was rainin’ gang members… from the bridges of old Mexico!

The next day the Mexican government cried out “No mas!”
The trains of illegals were no longer permitted to cross
‘Cause they’ll need the workers,
Lest their economy slow;
There’ll be mucho construcción mañana… on the bridges of old Mexico.

It was a problem that needed a handful of Yanks to resolve
There isn’t a crisis large amounts of explosives won’t solve.
Lots of jobs were created
And we stoped the illegal flow
By arranging the massive rebuilding… of the bridges of old Mexico!

Attorney “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “attorney” 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)

ATTORNEY

An attorney at law or an attorney in fact.

The word, unless clearly indicated otherwise, is construed as meaning attorney at law [Re Morse, 98 Vt 85, 126 A 550, 36 ALR 527, 530].

 

ATTORNEY AT LAW

One of a class of persons who are by license constituted officers of courts of justice, and who are empowered to appear and prosecute and defend, and on whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are devolved in consequence [7 Am J2d Attys § 1]. A quasi-judicial officer [7 Am J2d Attys § 3].

Of course, the work of an attorney is not confined to appearances in court for prosecutions and defenses. A person acting professionally in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings, by the warranty or authority of his clients is an attorney at law within the usual meaning of the term. The distinction between attorneys or solicitors and counsel or barristers is practically abolished in nearly all the states [7 Am J2d Attys § 1]. While some men of the profession devote their time and talents to the trial of cases and others appear in court only rarely, the law imposes the same requirements for admission and the same standards of ethics for both classes.

See barrister; of counsel; solicitor.

 

ATTORNEY IN FACT

An agent or representative authorized by a power of attorney to act for his principle in certain matters [3 Am J2d Agency § 23]. An agent, sometimes referred to as a private attorney who is authorized by his principal, either for some particular purpose, or to do a particular act, not of a legal character.

Such an agent is often designated by the word “attorney” after his name [Hall v. Sawyer, 47 Barb (NY) 116, 119].

 

 

(Bouvier’s)

  1. One who acts for another by virtue of an appointment by the latter. Attorneys are of various kinds.
  2. An attorney in fact is a person to whom the authority of another, who is called the constituent, is by him lawfully delegated. This term is employed to designate persons who act under a special agency, or a special letter of attorney, so that they are appointed in factum, for the deed, or special act to be performed; but in a more extended sense it includes all other agents employed in any business, or to do any act or acts in pais for another [Bac. Ab. Attorney; Story, Ag. 25].
  3. All persons who are capable of acting for themselves, and even those who are disqualified from acting in their own capacity, if they have sufficient understanding, as infants of a proper age and femes coverts, may act as attorneys of others [Co. Litt. 52, a; 1 Esp. Cas. 142; 2 Esp. Cas. 511 2 Stark. Cas. N. P. 204].
  4. The form of this appointment is by letter of attorney. (q. v.)
  5. The object of his appointment is the transaction of some business of the constituent by the attorney.
  6. The attorney is bound to act with due diligence after having accepted the employment, and in the end, to render an account to his principle of the acts which he has performed for him [Vide Agency; Agent; Authority; and Principal].
  7. An attorney at law is an officer in a court of justice, who is employed by a party in a cause to mange the same for him. Appearance by an attorney has been allowed in England, from the time of the earliest records of the courts of that country. They are mentioned in Glanville, Bracton, Fleta, and Britton; and a case turning upon the party’s right to appear by attorney, is reported [B. 17 Edw. III, p. 8, case 23]. In France such appearances were first allowed by letters patent of Philip le Bel, A.D. 1290 [1 Flournel, Hist. des Avocats, 42; 43, 92, 93 2 Loisel Coutumes, 14, 15]. It results from the nature of their functions, and of their duties, as well to the court as to the client, that no one can, even by consent, be the attorney of both the litigating parties, in the same controversy [Farresly, 47].
  8. In some courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, advocates are divided into counselors at law, (q. v.) and attorneys. The business of attorneys is to carry on the practical and formal parts of the suit [1 Kent, Com. 307; see as to their powers, 2 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 241, 254; 3 Chit. Bl. 12, 338; Bac. Ab. h.t.; 3 Penna. R. 74; 3 Wils. 374; 16 S & R. 368; 14 S & R 307; 7 Cranch, 452; 1 Penna R. 264]. In general, the agreement of an attorney at law, within the scope of his employment, binds his client [1 Salk. 86] as to amend the record, [1 Binn. 75] to refer a cause [1 Dall. Rep. 164; 6 Binn. 101; 7 Cranch, 436; 3 Taunt. 486] not to sue out of a writ of error [1 H. Bl. 21, 23 2 Saund. 71, a, b; 1 Term Rep. 388] to strike off a non pros [1 Bin. 469 – 470], to waive a judgment by default [1 Arcb. Pr. 26] and this is but just and reasonable [2 Bin. 161]. But the act must be within the scope of their authority. They cannot, for example, without special authority, purchase lands fro the client at sheriff’s sale [2 S. & R. 21 11 Johns. 464].
  9. The name of attorney is given to those officers who practice in courts of common law; solicitors, in courts of equity and proctors, in courts of admiralty, and in the English ecclesiastical courts.
  10. The principal duties of an attorney are to be true to the court and to his client; to manage the business of his client with care, skill, and integrity [4 Burr. 2061 1 B. & A. 202; 2 Wils. 325; 1 Bing. R. 347; 3]; to keep his client informed as to the state of his business; to keep his secrets confided to him as such. See client confidential communication.
  11. For a violation of his duties, an action will in general lie; 2 Greenl. Ev. 145, 146; and, in some cases, he may be punished by an attachment. His rights are, to be justly compensated for his services [Vide 1 Keen’s R. 668; Client; Counsellor at law].
  12. Attorney-general of the United States, is an officer appointed by the president. He should be learned in the law, and be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office.
  13. His duties are to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court, in which the United States shall be concerned; and give his advice upon questions of law, when required by the president, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching matters that may concern their departments [Act of 24th Sept. 1789].
  14. His salary is three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and he is allowed one clerk, whose compensation shall not exceed one thousand dollars per annum [Act 20th Feb. 1819, 3 Story’s Laws, 1720, and Act 20th April, 1818, s. 6, 3 Story’s Laws, 1693]. By the act of May 9, 1830 [4 Sharsw. cont. of Story, L. U. S. 2208, 10], his salary is increased five hundred dollars per annum.

 

 

(Black’s)

ATTORNEY

In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place of stead of another [In re Ricker, 66 N. H. 207, 29 Atl. 559, 24 L. R. A. 740; Eichelberger v. Sifford, 27 Md. 320].

It is “an ancient English word, and signifieth one that is set in the turne, stead, or place of another; and of these some be private…and some be publike, as attorneys at law.” [Co. Litt. 51b, 128a; Britt. 285b].

One who is appointed by another to do something in his absence, and who has authority to act in the place and turn of him by whom he is delegated.

When used with reference to the proceedings of courts, or the transaction of business in the courts, the term always means “attorney at law,” q. v. [And see People v. May, 3 Mich. 605; Kelly v. Heb, 147 Pa. 563, 23 Atl. 889; Clark v. Mirse, 16 La. 576].

  • Attorney ad hoc: see AD HOC.
  • Attorney at large: in old practice, an attorney who practiced in all the courts [Cowell].
  • Attorney in fact: a private attorney authorized by another to act in his place and stead, either for some particular purpose, as to do a particular act, or for the transaction of business in general, not of a legal character. This authority is conferred by an instrument in writing, called a “letter of attorney,” or more commonly a “power of attorney.” [Treat v. Tolman, 113 Fed. 893, 51 C. C. A. 522; Hall v. Sawyer, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) 119; White v. Furgeson, 29 Ind. App. 144, 64 N. E. 49].
  • Attorney of record: the one whose name is entered on the record of an action or suit as the attorney of a designated party thereto [Delaney v. Husband, 64 N. J. Law, 275, 45 Atl. 265].
  • Attorney of the wards and liveries: in English law, this was the third officer of the duchy court [Bac. Abr. “Attorney.”]
  • Public attorney: this name is sometimes given to an attorney at law, as distinguished from a private attorney, or attorney in fact.
  • Attorney’s certificate: in English law, a certificate that the attorney named has paid the annual tax or duty. This is required to be taken out every year for all practicing attorneys under a penalty of fifty pounds.
  • Attorney’s lien: see LIEN.
  • Letter of attorney: a power of attorney; a written instrument b y which one person constitutes another his true and lawful attorney, in order that the latter may do for the former, and in his place and stead, some lawful act [People v. Smith, 112, Mich. 192, 70 N. W. 466, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32; Civ. Code La. 1900, art. 2985].

 

ATTORNEY AT LAW

An advocate, counsel, official agent employed in preparing, managing, and trying cases in the courts. An officer in a court of justice, who is employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for him.

In English law, an attorney at law was a public officer belonging to the superior courts of common law at Westminster, who conducted legal proceedings on behalf of others, called his clients, by whom he was retained; he answered to the solicitor in the courts of chancery, and the proctor of the admiralty, ecclesiastical, probate, and divorce courts. An attorney was almost invariably also a solicitor. It is now provided by the judicature act, 1873, § 87 that solicitors, attorneys, or proctors, of, or by law empowered to practise in, any court the jurisdiction of which is by that act transferred to the high court of justice or the court of appeal, shall be called “solicitors of the supreme court” [Wharton].

  • The term is in use in America, and in most of the states includes “barrister,” “counselor,” and “solicitor,” in the sense in which those terms are used in England. In some states, as well as in the United States Supreme Court, “attorney” and “counsellor” are distinguishable, the former term being applied to the younger members of the bar, and to those who carry on the practice and formal parts of the suit, while “counselor” is the adviser, or special counsel retained to try the cause. In some jurisdictions one must have been an attorney for a given time before he can be admitted to practise as a counselor [Rap & L].

 

(Webster’s)

ATTORN’EY, n. [plu. attorneys].

One who is appointed or admitted in the place of another, to manage his matters in law. The word formerly signified any person who did business for another; but its sense is now chiefly or wholly restricted to persons who act as substitutes for the person’s concerned, in prosecuting and defending actions before courts of justice, or in transacting other business in which legal rights are involved. The word answers to the procurator (proctor) of the civilians.

Attorneys are not admitted to practice in courts until examined, approved, licensed, and sworn, by direction of some court after which they are proper officers of the court.

In Great Britain, and in some of the United States, attorneys are not permitted to be advocates or counsel in the higher courts; this privilege being confined to counselors and sergeants. In other states, there is no distinction of rank, and attorneys practice in all the courts. And in a general sense, the word “attorney” comprehends counselors, barristers, and serjeants.

In Virginia, the duties of attorney, counselor, conveyancer, and advocate, are all performed by the same individual.

An attorney may have general powers to transact business for another; or his powers may be special, or limited to a particular act or acts.

Attorney General is an officer appointed to manage business for the king, the state or public; and his duty, in particular, is to prosecute persons guilty of crimes.

A letter or warrant of attorney is a written authority from one person empowering another to transact business for him.

 

ATTORN’EY, v.t.

To perform by proxy; to employ as a proxy [Not in use].

Ecodefense?

With all of the legitimate grievances the American people have against the federal government, it is difficult to imagine that perhaps some of them wouldn’t be advocating for the collective exercise of their right of revolution. The cradle-to-grave dictates from all of the Administrative Agencies truly pushes past the boundaries for what constitutes a limited government; and as such, they were the ones who breached the contract with the people when they chose to rebel against the United States Constitution. These rebels are the ones responsible for the demise of our country, so is it any wonder that the people are beginning to rediscover various techniques of guerrilla warfare?

 

 

Monkey-wrenching, as I wrote about over two years ago, is the colloquial term for sabotage; monkey-wrenchers, by definition, are saboteurs (in much the same way the Maquis were during WWII). Earth First!, the environmental organization credited with advocating this neologism, currently defines monkey-wrenching as:

 

“Monkeywrenching is a step beyond civil disobedience. It is nonviolent, aimed only at inanimate objects. It is one of the last steps in defense of the wild, a deliberate action taken by an Earth defender when almost all other measures have failed.”

 

You should keep in mind that anti-propertarians of various stripes do not consider property destruction to be inherently violent, whereas those who value private property do; so, I think you can reasonable infer from their definition what Earth First!’s attitude towards property rights happens to be. By contrast, here is how James Jarboe of the American secret police chose to define monkey-wrenching:

 

“The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

 

As you can tell here, the FBI considers monkey-wrenching to be exactly the same as what they describe to be “eco-terrorism” (or alternatively as “ecotage”). Jarboe decried monkey-wrenching specifically, and direct action more generally, as types of criminal activities that the FBI and their “law enforcement partners” investigate. John Lewis additionally said that the FBI cooperates in investigations with foreign LEOs on eco-terrorism cases, because the Bureau has made the investigation and prevention of ecotage a “domestic terrorism investigative priority.” Although some individuals have claimed that monkey-wrenching could be more broadly described as little irritants to help “wake people up” by slowly delegitimizing the system, I think this muddies the water, as it were, by confusing attrition warfare with culture jamming.

So, where did monkey-wrenching come from? It is true that it originated from those environmentalists who grew disillusioned with reformism, so they decided to reorganize themselves around the idea that they were the last humans who were dedicated to the preservation of Nature, and this commitment of theirs was demonstrated by their acts of sabotage against the corporatocracy. These government unions for anti-free market plutocrats were able to financially profit from harvesting the raw materials from the land while keeping potential competitors out of their respective industries (not to mention how they were able to socialize the costs of “development” onto the taxpayers). The cherry on top was that these very same environmentalists also knew that the federal bureaucracy was already subject to regulatory capture, thereby exacerbating this whole tyrannical situation; this is why the Administrative Agencies of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and especially the United States Forest Service (USFS) are the sworn enemies of the monkey-wrenchers, because they are the socialized mercenaries working ultimately on behalf of the United States Congress.

What are the strategic goals of monkey-wrenching, though? Very simply, the idea here behind this class of guerrilla warfare techniques is to conduct a war of attrition; namely, to substantially increase the rebels’ costs high enough to the point where (ideally) they choose to just up and quit because their designs upon the environment are simply not worth it to them anymore. Obviously, in this context, the implementation of such a military strategy would necessarily entail property destruction, so if the enemy rebel forces were in control of “the law,” then why wouldn’t they use their bar attorneys to cast those captured saboteurs into the government dungeons?

The techniques of monkey-wrenching are vast and numerous. Better than describing them in any real length, I’ll list a few of them for you so you’ll begin to get an idea of what monkey-wrenching actually entails:

 

 

No doubt you can infer that much of monkey-wrenching could be considered as vandalism or destructive culture jamming, but this would be an oversimplification. Vandalism presumes that the destruction or defacement in question was chaotically random, whereas monkey-wrenching is deliberately and purposefully conducted in accordance with that abovementioned attrition strategy. This is further evidenced by the tactical principles of monkey-wrenching, which are:

 

  • Nonviolent (in the sense that no action is ever taken against human or animal life)
  • Not organized (no formal organizing, in any case)
  • Individual (usually by solitary civilian operators)
  • Targeted (because vandalism is counterproductive)
  • Timely (that is, non-interference with public civil disobedience)
  • Dispersed (under the leaderless resistance model)
  • Diverse (not just demographically, but also in terms of specialization)
  • Fun (not boring)
  • Non-revolutionary (it is self-defense of the wild only; also, no firearms are used)
  • Simple (improvisation of tools and safety during operations is paramount)
  • Deliberately ethical (thoughtful planning & the embodiment of a warrior ethos)

 

These principles are what justifies the use of their techniques. It is more important to understand why they act the way they do rather than how, because by doing so, it gives us a barometer by which to judge ourselves.

Obviously, it goes almost without saying, that monkey-wrenching is thoroughly and completely illegal. Not only does it violate mala prohibita, but unlike civil disobedience, monkey-wrenching takes the initiative by waging attrition warfare against the government. Although not all forms of “taking the initiative” need be in the context of conducting a guerrilla warfare campaign (such as by forming a security team or establishing a local Committee of Safety), it can definitely be applied that way.

I would like to take this opportunity to reemphasize the necessity for a genuine security culture. With all of the informants and vortexes swirling around us, it would behoove each and every one of us to at least keep our own counsel (even if you choose never to engage in monkey-wrenching). Each one of us can learn something from Jan Karski’s experience in remaining invisible from the Nazis.

Dave Foreman and Bill Haywood’s Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching is quote a provocative manual about a class of guerrilla warfare techniques; in fact, the word “Haydukery” refers to committing an even broader class of acts, which also encompasses methods of revenge, in addition to monkey-wrenching. Interestingly enough, monkey-wrenching is currently experiencing a noticeable resurgence, specifically targeting GMO crops. Yet, if you were to consider the fact that none other than Edward Abbey wrote the forward to this book, then I believe it would just be a matter of time until there was widespread hatred of genetically modified organisms by the American people. I will leave you with this paragraph from Abbey’s astute observation of American politics back in the (oh-so-appropriate) year of 1984:

 

“Representative democracy in the United States has broken down. Our legislators do not represent those who elected them but rather the minority who financed their political campaigns and who control the organs of communication – the Tee Vee, the newspapers, the billboards, the radio – that have made politics a game for the rich only. Representative government in the USA represents money, not people, and therefore has forfeited our allegiance and moral support. We owe it nothing but the taxation it extorts from us under threats of seizure of property, or prison, or in some cases already, when resisted, a sudden and violent death by gunfire.”

Economics in One Lesson

Too many people, even within the alternative media, are awfully ignorant of basic economic principles. They refuse to see that which is not seen, and they are very distrustful of each human making his own decisions in the marketplace by voluntarily cooperating with others towards a common goal. Not only do they neglect to think along the margins, but these Internet pundits that I’ve noticed are not afraid of engaging in Sophist trickery to propagandize their economic fallacies.

 

 

Reiterating Frédéric Bastiat’s thesis from That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, Henry Hazlitt (the same author who wrote Man v. The Welfare State) says:

 

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

 

Unfortunately, it is all too common for economic analyses to stop awfully short, whether they emanate from mainstream Keynesians such as Paul Krugman or phony alternative media pundits such as Ellen Brown. Hazlitt further details that:

 

“Economics, as we have now seen again and again, is the science of recognizing secondary consequences. It is also a science of seeing general consequences. It is the science of tracing the effects of some proposed or existing policy not only on some special interest in the short run, but on the general interest in the long run.”

 

Using this as his formula, Hazlitt proceeds to illustrate not only that which is not seen, but more importantly, to categorize the most pernicious economic fallacies.

Hazlitt begins by taking Bastiat’s parable of the broken window and relabeling it to be the broken window fallacy. Next, Hazlitt describes the fears of machines “stealing” people’s jobs to be the Luddite fallacy, because he saw the increased use of automation in much the same way that, ironically, the Zeitgeisters do; namely, that automation frees people from manual drudgery, thereby leaving them to allocate their labors elsewhere. Hazlitt says:

 

“One might pile up mountains of figures to show how wrong were the technophobes of the past. But it would do no good unless we understood clearly why they were wrong. For statistics and history are useless in economics unless accompanied by a basic deductive understanding of the facts – which means in this case an understanding of why the past consequences of the introduction of machinery and other labor-saving devices had to occur.”

 

Here, Hazlitt cautions that the exclusive use of statistics and banal history can actually be used to trick people into believing economic fairy tales. Much like Sherlock Holmes, Hazlitt insists that deductive reasoning must be used in order to make sense out of economic behavior.

Popular fallacies are always difficult to dislodge, because people have been deliberately propagandized to believe in their efficacy. Hazlitt attempts such dislodgement here by telling us that tariffs always reduce wages, that so-called “parity pricing” benefits farmers at the expense of reducing everyone else’s wages, and that the minimum wage destroys jobs by criminalizing all those jobs that would have paid a wage below of that of what “the law” required to be the minimum amount. He further warns us that the implications of the economic slogans commonly made are not recognized by their own adherents, for to advocate an increase in credit is to necessarily increase debt, to increase farm prices also increases the food prices for those who are urbanized (which is currently ~ 82% of the domestic American population), to increase government subsidies is to increase taxes, to increase exports is to increase imports, and to increase wage rates is to increase the price of production. If greater debt, higher grocery bills, larger taxes, more imports, and pricier productions costs are your goal, then by all means advocate for easy bank credit, greater farm profits, larger subsidies, more exports, and higher wages.

Anti-propertarians of various stripes and colors really don’t understand the law of the diminishing marginal utility or the price system itself. What they have called “Crusoe economics” is what best illustrates how prices work; that is, prices are determined by the interplay of supply and demand, not by the costs of production. This is why price controls actually increase the shortage of goods, which consequently, decreases living standards. As Hazlitt says:

 

“It is only the much vilified price system that solves the enormously complicated problem of deciding precisely how much of tens of thousands of different commodities and services should be produced in relation to each other. These otherwise bewildering equations are solved quasi-automatically by the system of prices, profits, and costs. They are solved by this system incomparably better than any group of bureaucrats could solve them. For they are solved by a system under which each consumer makes his own demand and casts a fresh vote, or a dozen fresh votes, every day; whereas bureaucrats would try to solve it by having made for the consumers, not what the consumers themselves wanted, but what the bureaucrats decided was good for them. Yet though the bureaucrats do not understand the quasi-automatic system of the market, they are always disturbed by it. They are always trying to improve it or correct it, usually in the interests of some wailing pressure group.”

 

Put another way, it is the demands of customers relative to the supply provided by the businessmen that determines prices. Government bureaucratic invention in the market distorts this valuable interplay of prices, usually under the guise of “fixing” some problem (which more often than not, they themselves created in the first place). They will misidentify the Forgotten Man as the beneficiary of government regulations, when it fact, he is the one bearing the costs of enforcement, all for someone else’s gain.

Much of the diatribes against the free market are targeted at the supposed unethical nature of profits, all the while turning a blind eye to the inherent evils of central banking. Unions only care about preserving their membership’s unearned privilege to be paid for their skilled labor irrespective of market demand. Hazlitt pointed out:

 

“Thus we are driven to the conclusion that unions, though they may for a time be able to secure an increase in money wages for their members, partly at the expense of employers and more at the expense of non-unionized workers, do not, in the long run and for the whole body of workers, increase real wages at all.

 

Contrary to the propaganda spewed by the union bosses, the stated goals of unionization are never actually achieved whenever they’ve been experimented with; the only observable result lays with the mandatory membership dues that these union bosses regularly collect into their own coffers. Regarding profits themselves, Hazlitt says:

 

“The function of profits, finally, is to put constant and unremitting pressure on the head of every competitive business to introduce further economies and efficiencies, no matter to what stage these may already have been brought. In good times he does this to increase his profits further; in normal times he does it to keep ahead of his competitors; in bad times he may have to do it to survive at all. For profits may not only go to zero; they may quickly turn into losses; and a man will put forth greater efforts to save himself from ruin that he will merely to improve his position.”

 

Competition in supplying market demand is what drives production, not “regulations.” Administrative Agency bureaucrats are not at all incentivized to serve those whom they “regulate” like how businessmen are incentivized to satisfy customer demand. Central banking, for example, does not serve the users of its fiat currency. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of the currency, thereby becoming a hidden tax. On this point, Hazlitt said:

 

“Like every other tax, inflations acts to determine the individual and business policies we are all forced to follow. It discourages all prudence and thrift. It encourages squandering, gambling, reckless waste of all kinds. It often makes it more profitable to speculate than to produce. It tears apart the whole fabric of stable economic relationships. Its inexcusable injustices drive men toward desperate remedies. It plants the seeds of fascism and communism. It leads men to demand totalitarian controls. It ends invariably in bitter disillusion and collapse.”

 

Notice also how savings, as a preserved form of expended labor (aka, liquid capital) can be used to trade for goods and services in the future during unforeseen scenarios or for a deliberate purpose, has been decried by the Keynesians as harmful to the economy, because they claim that reckless spending leads to financial prosperity. Hazlitt’s rebuttal to them is that:

 

“When your money is taken by a thief, you get nothing in return. When your money is taken through taxes to support needless bureaucrats, precisely the same situation exists. We are lucky, indeed, if the needless bureaucrats are mere easy-going loafers. They are more likely today to be energetic reformers busily discouraging and disrupting production.”

 

This statement of Hazlitt’s appears to justify the position that all taxation is theft. Regardless, the secondary and larger consequences of bureaucratic policies must be ruthlessly critiqued if there is to be any embryonic resemblance of a free market.

Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is a truly wonderful exposition about the fallacies popularly believed in by many Americans. Originally published in 1946 (which is the same year the Administrative Procedures Act was passed), Hazlitt remarks:

 

“The classical economists, refuting the fallacies of their own day, showed that the saving policy that was in the best interests of the individual was also in the best interests of the nation. They showed that the rational saver, in making provision for his own future, was not hurting, but helping, the whole community. But today the ancient virtue of thrift, as well as its defense by the classical economists, is once more under attack, for allegedly new reasons, while the opposite doctrine of spending is in fashion.”

 

This is the kind of craziness that lovers of liberty are still dealing with decades later with all of the government supremacists and their fetish for central planning. Interestingly enough, Hazlitt also said:

 

“But the solution is never to reduce supplies arbitrarily, to prevent further inventions or discoveries, or to support people for continuing to perform a service that has lost its value. Yet this is what the world has repeatedly sought to do by protective tariffs, by the destruction of machinery, by the burning of coffee, by a thousand restriction schemes. This is the insane doctrine of wealth through scarcity.”

 

I find it quite remarkable that Hazlitt considered scarcity, in this context, to be artificially imposed by legislators and bureaucrats who tax, ban, or regulate the free market. Unfortunately, Hazlitt was not entirely consistent when it came to his condemnation of government employees, though:

 

“I must insist again that in all this I am not talking of public officeholders whose services are really needed. Necessary policemen, firemen, street cleaners, health officers, judges, legislators, and executives perform productive services as important as those of anyone in private industry. They make it possible for private industry to function in an atmosphere of law, order, freedom, and peace. But their justification consists in the utility of their services. It does not consist in the ‘purchasing power’ they possess by virtue of being on the public payroll.”

 

Besides what could possibly be construed as pandering, Hazlitt’s condemnation of economic fallacies is something I wish more patriots would stress in their own rhetoric.