“THE FRATERNITY “- THE CORRUPTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM EXPOSED BY A JUDGE
“The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.”
Justice John F. Molloy
When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls. In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back
The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs
That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution
Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination
When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?
When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law
The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design
Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served. Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.
It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers. By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly. It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.
Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.
A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths.
Copyright 2004, Paragon House
This was to keep B.A.R. members out public office…http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/04/the-true-back-story-of-the-missing-13th-amendment/
and http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/supremacy-clause-constitution-is-supreme/
2018-09-04
FYI:
PROOF: “BAR” attorney’s are AGENTS of a FOREIGN power and most of them KNOW it.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/proof-bar-attorneys-are-agents-of-a-foreign-power-and-most-of-them-know-it/19840
Unlike all other ‘licensed professions,’ there is NO “license” issued by any state ‘licensing’ agency to attorneys. Attorneys receive an Order from the State Supreme Court ‘authorizing them to practice law,’ and they are ‘officers of the court,’ which is why their first duty is to the court, NOT to their client…”His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client.” 7 C.J.S. Sect. 4 (this used to be in Section 4, I’ve read it…however, they may have moved it by now).
Additionally:
“Clients are also called ‘wards of the court’ in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.” 7 C.J.S. Sect. 2. ‘Wards of the court’ are defined to be “Infants and persons of unsound mind…” Davis’ Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190.
2018-09-04
In addition to the information provided by M. Battaglia on the subject of the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, prohibiting anyone with a title of nobility OR honor from holding public / government office:
EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINAL 13th AMENDMENT
Record of the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment in the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS:
(if the link does not automatically work when clicked, then copy and paste the ENTIRE link into internet browser address bar)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=004/llsj004.db&recNum=490&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj004446%29%29%230040392&linkText=1
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation:
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Volume 4
Page 503 of 601
The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, which if allowed to remain would have PROHIBITED ALL ATTORNEYS FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN GOVERNMENT, was destroyed during the War of 1812, and has been kept hidden and covered-up since then through constructive FRAUD.
Also see:
http://usavsus.info/usA–Original13thAmend.htm
(Original)
Amendment XIII
[proposed at the 2nd session of the 11th Congress]
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
The War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Efforts to complete the ratification of the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment were QUASHED by those who would now be classified as ‘Deep State’ globalist controller cabal who continue their long-term efforts to destroy the Constitution and the UNION known as the United States of America as founded, a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy. The Founders saw a Democracy as another form of tyranny.
The cabal couldn’t control the government without having BAR attorneys in government offices and dominating government.
BAR = British Accredited Registry, which confers the “Title of Nobility or Honor” of “ESQUIRE” to all BAR attorneys admitted to ‘practice law.’
DEFINITION: esquire
(ĕs′kwīr′, ĭ-skwīr′); n.
1. A man or boy who is a member of the gentry in England ranking directly below a knight.
2. Abbr. Esq. Used as an honorific usually in its abbreviated form, especially after the name of an attorney or a consular officer: Jane Doe, Esq.; John Doe, Esq.
3. Chiefly British A barrister-at-law.
4. In medieval times, a candidate for knighthood who served a knight as an attendant and a shield bearer.
5. Archaic An English country gentleman; a squire.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/esquire
https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1043-massarrests/…..as quoted from 1/4 of the way down the page…getting back to the original 13th ammendment…
“THE BASIC PREMISE OF A NATION-STATE
DK: So, the basic premise of a nation-state is this:
What most people used was either their own constitution or they wrote one. It had to agree with the 1787 United States Constitution, to include the 13th.
And I mean the Original Thirteenth Amendment — where certain people are not allowed to hold foreign offices here in the states.
The Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, and that real cool document called the Declaration of Independence.
DW: Mmm.
DK: By declaring our sovereignty and our disengagement, or our effort to remove ourself — ourselves; ourself meaning individual states — from the corporate United States government, what this did was to re-birth the Declaration of Independence…
DW: Mmm.
DK: …which states on page two that when the government gets out of whack, you got the right to take care of the problem.
DW: Absolutely.
THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DECLARATION
DK: Now, here’s the other part of this.
The manner and format of using those documents, the original founding documents, in conjunction with a meeting by representative residents of a state, gives those people the right to make the Declaration.
DW: Mmm.
DK: This then gives legal authority, by the civilian authority, to the military to take actions as necessary to back up the civilian action.
DW: That’s what I thought. Okay. Perfect.
DK: It’s kind of convoluted, and I know it’s not real simple. But simply, we sent off Notification. The military gave us a gold star; they just loved it, okay?
WERE THESE ORDINARY PEOPLE?
DW: I’m assuming that, just so people get clear on this, you’re not talking about just a group of ordinary folks who are like surfing the Net and listening to ‘truth radio.’
These are actually people who have some degree of influence in these states that you were networking with.
DK: No. As a matter of fact, some of them are not very well educated. I’m going to make this perfectly clear: You don’t need influence in order to take certain actions.
DW: I see. So, the simple fact that we are all American citizens — everyone whom you’re speaking about, myself included — any citizen has the right to do this.
DK: Yes, basically.
DW: Okay. Perfect.
BECOMING A SOVEREIGN NATION
DK: Now, the premise is this.
In term of declaring your state as free of the United States government — and I’m talking about the corporate government and all of its affiliates — what happens is that each state becomes, according to the Notification Process, its own sovereign nation.
DW: Mmm.
DK: So, this is where the “nation-states” handle comes from.
DW: I see.
DK: It’s just a plurality of what individual states did. You have to have a certain number of people who reside in each state in order to accomplish the process.
It’s not difficult. We do have backup and assistance for that if somebody has problems.
WE GOT A MAJORITY OF THE STATES
DK: In our effort, we got enough of a majority of the states to have a cushion — in case there was some problem with some of the paperwork.
This was along with a fair group of Indian nations, who also submitted paperwork in such a fashion that the basis is this:
The [de jure] United States has been set free from the corporate [de facto] government … literally, on a lawful basis, as recognized internationally.”
2018-09-04
Here is a perfect example of why one should always VERIFY that are made, as best as one can. Earlier today, I posted a link to an article,
PROOF: “BAR” attorney’s are AGENTS of a FOREIGN power and most of them KNOW it.
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/proof-bar-attorneys-are-agents-of-a-foreign-power-and-most-of-them-know-it/19840
In that article, there is a quote, “The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State,” which is claimed to have been stated in a certain U.S. Supreme Court case, as follows:
THE BARCARD AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;
“The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State.”
(Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)
That would be a good quote to use, so for verification purposes, I obtained a copy of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (1957) from the State Law Library of Washington (they emailed the .pdf for free, obtained from LexisNexis, same day as requested). I searched for the purported quote, “The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State.” MOST UNFORTUNATELY, I could not find any such wording, or similar wording, in pages 238, 239, or anywhere in that Opinion. While the premise or principle may well be true, the claim of such a quote from said case is apparently not true, unfortunately, which does not lend credibility to the argument and claims being made. Gives cause to wonder if this article was written by a ‘disinformation’ / ‘discrediting’ agent, or by someone who simply parroted what someone else claimed and failed to do their due diligence to verify the claims being made.
In the same article referenced above, there is also another purported quote,
“The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT!”
(Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)).
I also obtained a copy of this case from said State Law Library, and again UNFORTUNATELY, I could find no such wording, or similar wording, in the Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 decision by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Again, the ‘inaccuracies’ in this article in no way make the claim false, that there are no “licenses” issued by any state licensing agency to attorneys to practice law. I know this to be factually true from my own first-hand due diligence research and investigation.
Verify, verify, verify…….
2018-09-04
BZ, there used to be an indication after clicking on “Post Comment” that one’s message is awaiting approval by the moderator, or some such wording. Now I do not see any confirmation or indication whatsoever that a Comment was successfully submitted for posting after clicking on “Post Comment.” What happened to the confirmation indicator? It would be nice if there were some indication that a Comment has been successfully submitted and is awaiting approval. Thanks.
I have not made any changes to how the comments are held in que… Not aware that I would have that control. I know the 3rd party providers for all plugins, blog themes, everyone changed all their privacy specs with new EU requirements, that could have something to do with it, not sure.
I did activate the subscribe to comments button again. I can keep it active as long as I am not getting more than 50 new comments a day on any one post. because that trips security codes within the I UV’s structure with all those people being emailed from that one comment on that one post times 50 new comments on that one new post times however many people subscribed to the comments on that on post.
Thank you, BZ, and thanks for activating the ‘subscribe to comments’ option again. 🙂