TAKE AMERICA BACK

Spokesperson Phil Merlettiwillowbee.traveler@hotmail.com

www. takeamericabackofmaine .vpweb.com Draft #12

100 YEARSof

LAW & (un)JUSTICE

Booklet written by H.T. Silsby II, Alan Stone and William Dawson Jr.Report on booklet, research, comments written by Phil Merletti

Edited by Wayne R. Leach &

Please note that this report is in draft form. I will update this report with more information as it continues to surface, to explain or clarify the existing facts. Also, it is intended by me, that you have access to the 78 page booklet “100 Years of Law and Justice” to read and study and for reference and to compare the excerpts and the intent of the perversion and dishonesty that I point out. I ask the reader to use the 100-year booklet to compare my interpretation to prevent any accusations that I have taken anything out of context. The 100-year booklet was written and published for and accepted by the Maine State BAR Association. This booklet, by intent and design, cannot be purchased on the open market. However it can be accessed and lent through the Maine State Law Library System. A side note: I was the second person to have barrowed this booklet since 1991.

I have one fear however, and that is, as the information in this packet becomes spread throughout the masses of the Maine Public, the booklet “100 Years of Law and Justice” may be mysteriously removed from the Law Libraries of Maine and destroyed by those that wish to hide the truth and therefore extinguish the light that this report exposes. Anyone reading this report will without any doubt realize that the destruction of our Maine Constitution and the dismantling of our court system was not a mistake or coincidence, but a well planned, well thought out, long-term conspiracy. As a second thought; the people involved today in this plot are not going to take this exposure lying down. I have no idea as to how far they will go to squash this information and as a side thought, they may wish to use current fraudulent Maine Law and the court system to quiet and punish those who wish to reveal the events and tell the truth!

It was also my intent to turn a boring history booklet, which was intended for only lawyers to read, into one that is easier for the average person to understand. By comparing my report to the 100 Years of Law & Justice, it will be easy to realize what the Judges, Attorney Generals, Prose-cutors and Lawyers have skillfully done to us, by infiltrating and taking legal command of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government. It becomes easy to see that once the in-filtration became the norm, it was easy to plan how to change Maine Law and the protections that are secured by the Constitution of Maine.

1

I make just one more assumption, and that is that you have read and understand the Constitution of Maine and understand that it has evolved from its conception in 1820 by a system of establishing repugnant and fraudulent amendments. The correct process used to establish Constitutional amendments is written in Article IV, Part Third, Section 1 & Article X Sections 3 & 4. However, because the word repugnant is not recognizable or used in today’s language, the lawyers were able to slip their agenda passed honest governors, legislators and the voting public.

Article IV, Part Third, Section 1 is written that the Legislature: shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.Article X Sections 3 is written that: All laws now in force in this state, and not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force, until altered or repealed by the Legislature, or shall expire by their own limitation.To this day the Governors and the legislature do not use nor do they understand the intent and relationship of these two articles.

In the early 1800’s, an issue brought before the Supreme Court, recorded as “Marbury verses Madison”; Chief Justice Marshall’s famous response relating to this issue, is written: “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”To this day the Governors and the legislature do not understand the intent and relationship of this Supreme Court case.

The leaders and the lawyers devised their despicable plan, they could control the Executive and Legislative Branches, the lawyers could have complete control and create resolves and bills that benefited their own agendas. Because lawyers study the law (but not Constitutional/common Law), their knowledge is respected and followed by most laypersons, legislators and governors. The lawyers in turn could convince the honest governors and other legislators to accept their concepts of reformation of the Maine legal and court system. If the Governor happened to be an ally or a fellow BAR lawyer too, the scam could be accelerated and the resolves and bills would be revised with flowery, elaborate rhetoric and compelling language that would gain sympathetic and emotional support. Eventually, this method of reforming and revamping the Maine Constitution and Maine Law became a yearly conquest, which has led us to the point that we are at today.

As I am only a researcher, I am not qualified to release this information as advice. However, it is for educational information only, and I would advise the readers to study on their own and to research and clarify what I submit to you. To add to the creditability of this information, I make this challenge: I can and will meet with those that wish to have one on one or group discussions to understand this complex information more fully. Also, if anyone has more connecting information, facts and figures not mentioned in this report, I would be more than willing to add it to this report and give full recognition to that person.

Before you read this report, it is important to understand the following information. Note: These bullets are not in chronological order by date or subject. .

2

It is said that the term BAR is an acronym for the “British Accredited Registry or British Accredited Regency”. However the members of the BAR will not admit it, but they cannot disprove or prove differently.

During the 1600’s, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where Barristers (Attorneys/Lawyers) were ordered by the Crown to record their names with the Regency.

The BAR only grants the attorney a card, not to be confused with a license to “practice law”. It is rumored that when you pass the gate and enter the barrier that surrounds the judge’s area

and the defendant and prosecution tables, you have entered the British colonial forum. Other rumors claim that you have entered the deck of the Admiralty Court or the Marshall or Military Law Court system.

The Courts in Maine no longer display the court seal (violation), also on display is a gold-fringe flag (recognized as an Admiralty flag, military flag or Martial Law flag); it is the flag and court seal that determines the judicial jurisdiction. The Constitutional Common Law Courts of our past had its own seal and there was no gold-fringe to show its jurisdiction. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers cannot or will not explain why there is a gold-fringe on the court flags in Maine today. Whatever the reason, the flag with gold-fringe designates the jurisdiction of the court and its Judge's authority; therefore the Maine courts are no longer Constitutional or Common Law Courts.

The Admiralty Law is the law of the sea, while the United States Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land!”. It is also rumored that this country was not released from Marshal Law after Lincoln’s term and that is the reason for the gold-fringe?

The American BAR Association (ABA) was organized in 1878 and the U.S. Congress incorporated the Federal BAR Association (FBA) in 1954.

The International BAR Association (IBA) includes Mexico, Canada, all of Europe and many more nations in the United Nations club.

The phrase used in early documents that identified the law that regulated the legislators, judges, court officials and lawyers was “learned in the law”. This phrase meant to the people at that time as knowing Constitutional Laws, Common Laws and procedures, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws.

Maine laws or Constitutional laws after 1820 may not be lawful or Constitutional. The consolidated Maine Superior Court (no longer Constitutional County Court which used

Common Law) was established in 1930. There are also no longer County Attorneys, they are now District Attorneys.

Without the knowledge of the Constitution(s) and Common Law, a Court Justice, District Attorneys or Officers of the court, cannot interpret Constitutional Law.

The Maine State Bar Association was established in 1891, members have taken an Oath to the BAR; even though the Oath does not specify the state where the Oath was taken (see the Oath at the end of this report). However, they must take two Oaths that are found in the Maine Constitution, which should hold them responsible to the Maine and U.S. Constitutions, but they ignore both.

The Maine BAR Association is a private corporation, but through its card carrying lawyers that are elected legislators and Governors, the Maine BAR Association, a corporation has control over the state government.

The Judicial power of the State of Maine “shall be vested in the (original) Supreme Judicial Court”.

3

The Supreme Court, the Maine State Bar Association and its “Board of Overseers” deem that Attorneys/Lawyers are “Officers of the Court” and are therefore part of, controlled and regulated under the rules of the Judicial Department/Branch. Therefore by practice and definition, it controls and regulates its members in the Departments/Branches of the Legislature and the Executive

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) was established in 1936. It was considered the “Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party”. The Guild was split as to its true agenda, but several of their subcommittees blatantly supported the Cuban regime and other terrorist movements in Arab Middle Eastern countries, like the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Vietnam/Cambodian terrorist organizations. There is proof of collusion with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and their dual membership with both the NLG and the ACLU.

The protections of Constitutional Laws, Common Laws, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws totally ended in 1959 by the Enacting Clause “Law & Equity Act”.

In 1966, all court laws were combined.

It is also important to know that Reed, Silsby, Stone and Dawson had no compunction in hiding their intentions or their designs of control over repugnant resolves or bills that resulted in obvious blatant fraud which resulted in fraudulent, unconstitutional (repugnant) legislative laws.

4

Excerpts taken from the history of the,“100 Years of Law and Justice”, Maine State Bar Association from 1819-1991

Written by Phil Merletti.

FOREWORD

Page # iSilsby starts off with erroneous statements, that could easily distract and misguide a reader to believe that the Maine BAR Association has the best interest of the people of Maine. Silsby refers to Alfred Z. Reed’s great study of the legal profession, Reed is quoted to say: “Lawyers are part of the governing mechanism of the state.” In Reed’s study, he also quotes Reginald Heber Smith: “Under a government of laws, the lives, the fortunes, and the freedom of the people are wholly dependent upon the enforcement of their Constitutional Rights by an independent judiciary and by an independent bar.”

First of all, Silsby, Reed and Smith were blatant and obviously not afraid to reveal the intent of the Maine State BAR Association to be involved with the creation of law, which is not their authorization! Lawyers have no business being part of the creation of law, enforcement of law or the governing process of the laws of this state or any other state that respects and follows the U.S. & State Constitutions. Smith, on the other hand, understood that livelihood, fortunes and freedom were Constitutional, but he either tried to make the reader think that people had “Constitutional Rights” or he was ignorant of the powers of U.S. & Maine Constitutions.

Having Constitutional rights is a mistake that most people believe to this day. Silsby, Reed & Smith being lawyers, must not have known or understood that the Constitution did not give rights, but rather it secured and protected these unalienable GOD given rights under the common law, natural law. The BAR on the other hand is just a corporation, which should have absolutely no part of the creation of law, enforcement of law or the governing process of the laws of any free and independent state!

As the readers continue, they will find that it is the Common Law Court, Common Law Judges, County Attorneys and Common Law Lawyers who are the real independent judiciary that can secure and protect unalienable GOD given rights under the Common law, Natural law.

As far as being protected by a card carrying British Accredited Lawyer/Esquire/Barrister, he was wrong; only a person that is “learned in the law (Constitution)”, practicing law in a Common Law Court, with a Common Law Judge, has the Constitutional authority to lawfully practice, represent and assist. What an independent BAR has to do with Constitutional (protected) rights is beyond any correct or intelligent reasoning, unless it is their nature or mandate to push the need for the Maine State BAR Association's fraudulent authority and importance.

It is no secret that our corrupt National & Maine government and court systems want to adopt and incorporate European Law. Is not European Law accepted by the International BAR Association? Is it not a fact that between the United Nations and the International BAR Association, they are eventually streamlining all laws under one socialist umbrella? Why would

5

the Maine BAR Association want to be associated with the American & International BAR Association, unless they were in favor of adopting European Law?

Page #ii

Silsby boasts that: lawyers as a separate class have participated in the governing of this state and have dominated in the numbers of the high public offices in the U.S. Congress. For example, he quotes: “75% of U.S. Senators, 65% of the U.S. House members, and over 50% of the Maine Governors have been lawyers.” He is blatant and holds no remorse for explaining these facts and figures as he reveals the fact that the majority of legislators and Governors were attorneys/lawyers. Silsby only mentions the high public offices, but he does not however disclose how many State Senators or Representatives were lawyers.

We can do more than speculate that there have been State Senators and Representative that have held both positions as lawyers/legislators in the past and we do know that there are many that presently holds these two positions today. What we do know for sure is that we have the many acknowledgements listed in the 100 Years of Law and Justice booklet that brag about their influence the legislature.

A lawyer that is elected as legislators clearly and blatantly violates the Constitution of Maine Article III, sections 1 & 2. This partially explains why and how we have come to the destruction of our Constitution today and it is no longer a surprise that our Constitution and its protections have been slowly eroded by their plan to infiltrate the Legislative and Executive Departments while ignoring the Maine Constitution! (see Part II of the 100 Years of Law & (un)Justice for other methods used to fulfill and fit their agenda)

Silsby next discusses a study by Michael Burrage of the London School of Economics and Political Science. This study compares the French, American and English legal professions. As a reminder, the French and English and U.S. legal systems cannot be combined, unless they cherry pick what is the same. Burrage mentions four goals:1. Control of the training and admission to legal practice.2. Demonstrate and protect the jurisdiction of the practice of law.3. Impose their own rules of etiquette, ethics or practice on one another (the rules of

professional conduct).4. Defend and enhance their status.5. These four goals were adopted as early as 1829 in the Cumberland County BAR rules and

regulations.

Page #iii

Silsby responds: “One goal that is somewhat surprising in view of the conservative reputation of the legal profession in Maine is the great discussions and actions of the BAR in attempting to reform the law and legal system and the administration of justice. The history of the Maine State BAR Association clearly shows that at least that organization was far ahead of the public in seeing the need of reform from time to time.”

6

Silsby was right about one thing; the Maine State BAR Association (corporation) was far ahead of the public in seeing the reformation which finally weakened, degraded and destroyed much of the People's Constitution and Maine Laws. If you notice, not one of Burrage’s goal mentioned the people’s needs, or the protections that the Constitution would provide under the Common Law that they wanted to reform! However, the goals zeroed in on what would be the training goals and who may be brought into the fold of the legal practice. The goals also narrowed the jurisdiction and the imposition of their own rules of etiquette, ethics or practice on one another. The last goal is the most disgusting and repugnant, to defend and enhance their (own) status, not the people! These four goals may be all right for a society or socialistic government that did not have a Constitution to protect people’s rights. If this was acceptable in Burrage’s view, maybe he should have stayed in Europe and reform their government and laws, not ours.

Silsby says that “Maine lawyers have a proud tradition of the civilized and professional practice of law. Abuses have been few.” I disagree and I am willing to contest this fact before the masses of Maine people. As you read on you will see that the plan to infiltrate the three departments/branches of government, create repugnant Constitutional Amendments and Laws, remove the Common Law Courts, transform the People’s Government into a Corporate Law Government, and that the takeover and control is then complete.

THE INCORPORATIONPage #1

Silsby writes: “In 1891, An act was passed by the Maine Legislature incorporating the Maine State BAR Association “for the purpose of promoting the interests of the legal profession, and of instituting legal reforms.”

This was not the beginning of their agenda, it started after the Revolutionary War. However, this particular act legitimized their existence and it gave credence to the corporation. Having this recognition, it now set the legal stage for the purpose of promoting the interests of the legal profession, and of instituting legal reforms. It would have been extremely obvious to destroy and dismantle the Constitution and its protections overnight, so long term patience was needed.

Keep in mind that this Act was passed only 25 years after the Civil War. If the people in the North and the South knew that, behind the curtain, their country was under a reformed government, an oligarchy of the elite; there would have been an immediate new civil war. This time, it would have been between all of the people (North & South, East & west) against the new government and not just a “War Between the States”. It would not be to their advantage at that time to move quickly because it revolves around money and power and the Country was still trying to rebuild itself. So far, this process had taken almost a hundred years, but the people had no clue of what had happened and what was going to happen. Today, over two hundred years and they are still at it, but now we have logically uncovered their plan! What angers me the most, is they did it right out in the open and under our noses!

7

Page #2

The first paragraph is telling, for they admit to the fact that the Maine State BAR Association is a corporation and that it was established in 1891.

Silsby continues: The standing Committees were: the executive, Law Reform, Legal Education & Admission to the Bar and legal history. The Law Reform Committee had the duty to report to the Association, amendments to the

laws as should, in their opinion, be adopted, to scrutinize proposed changes in the law, observe the practical working of the judiciary system and recommend changes in it.

The Committee on Legal Education was to prepare and report a system of legal education and for examination and admission to the BAR.

The Committee on Legal History (only) recorded the facts relating to the history of the profession as might be of interest and suitable written or printed materials of the lives and characteristics of distinguished members of the profession.

Think about these items for a minute: They (Maine State BAR Association) set up a system where they create a bill which becomes Maine law that allows a corporation (themselves) to amend laws. The Maine BAR can scrutinize proposed changes in the law, and they can observe the practical working of the judiciary system. Than they can recommend changes in it and than tell their lawyer/legislators lawyer/governor to change the law or the Constitution again to suit their agenda.

Then they (Maine State BAR Association) create a Maine law that allows a corporation to create their own education process for a BAR attorney. Than they create the testing material to study from and then the students have to pass their own examination test, and then the Maine BAR chooses who can be admitted to the BAR; so it is all sewed up from start to finish!

And then, the Committee on Legal History can preserve, what they whish in the archives, all the suitable materials of the actions of all the distinguished members that created these dastardly acts, how wonderful!

And remember that the lawyers are now in the majority of the 2 branches of the legislature and over 50% were elected Governors. They are already in the seats of power! The Judiciary branch is working on the inside the legislative and the executive branches! Who would have thought up this scheme, no one can make this stuff up, it’s perfect, they could make a Hollywood movie with this!

Before the reader goes any further, it is important to know that this Act of 1891 is not only fraudulent, but it also flies directly in the face of the Maine Constitution, which makes it unconstitutional. It is self evident that the Maine State BAR Association leaders did know what they were doing, even when they pushed this act through.

What you read next is crystal clear and it cannot be misconstrued or misunderstood. How did any lawyer not know or understand the Constitution of Maine, Article III? I suggest they did know,

8

and they blatantly proceeded anyway to establish policies to deceive the Legislature and People into accepting unlawful amendments to subvert the original intent. Article III, Section 1: The powers of this government shall be divided into 3 distinct

departments, the legislative, executive and judicial. Article III, Section 2: No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments shall

exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.

9

LAW & JUSTICE(The Earliest Years)

Page #5

There is another important fact about this covert operation to remember. I could muddy the waters at this time by tying in the elite banking families, the world banking system and the bank of England, but that is another area of discussion. I will mention it only in passing and let you know that the moneylenders and controllers were a big part of this clandestine operation. I will let the readers look into that issue on their own, and will leave you with this thought: power, control, money and sex are the great motivators in life. In this case, we can forget the sex part and follow the money trail.

This section makes no reference as to how the BAR made any transition from the English Crown Controlled Court to the American Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This transition of government and transition of allegiance is very important in the history of any country government that was overthrown. Those who resisted the transition would have been labeled treasonous rebels. None of the authors of this booklet refer to this transition, which indicates to me that there was no intention of transitioning many of the lawyers that were still loyal to the Crown and the British Accredited Registry/Regency. Note: There is reference and history concerning changes before and after the Revolution on page 37, paragraph 2, but this information does not relate to this paragraph.

Anyone who studies archived history books on the Revolutionary War will tell you that the majority of the elite and those who were connected to the Crown did not like the outcome of the war. Many Lawyers and Judges still stayed loyal all the way up to the war of 1812. For years John Adams and Thomas Jefferson argued their beliefs concerning government power and control and the people’s rights for freedom and liberty. But there is little written history of the transition of the Lawyers and Judges from the English Crown and its British Accredited Registry.

Whose side do you believe the Court and the Lawyers were on? The Revolutionary War was no minor event in history. One would think that if there were a transition of BAR Lawyers not loyal to the royal court anymore, the Judges and the court officers and the lawyers would have been mentioned when they swore a new allegiance to the new Massachusetts colony court system and they would have given up their Oath to the British Accredited Registry/Regency. Silsby never mentions this important transition, but instead, he obviously ignored it. This lack of coverage leads me to believe that for many, there was no transition from the English Court or their allegiance to the British Accredited Registry/Regency!

The common people at that time were more interested in staying alive and surviving the seasons. When they crossed the government laws or the power of the elite, they were brought into the court system; they had no one else to trust but those who understood the law. So they were stuck with having to hire lawyers or beg mercy from the court.

During the early years, the lawyers that were members of the BAR were not as organized as they would have liked, mostly because of the lack of established transportation and the great distance

10

between the five counties of York, Cumberland, Lincoln, Hancock and Washington. Before Maine became an independent state, Maine was called the district of Maine and the members of the BAR belonged to the “BARR of the district of Maine”. Each county had its own BAR in 1802 (18 years before Maine became independent of Massachusetts).

THE ASSOCIATION(Organization and Reform)

Page # 9

This section is the most revealing and the basis for the proof of the connection with the English Crown! Once again, there is no trying to hide this point from the reader and my suspicion is confirmed that the BAR never transitioned from English Law to our Constitutional Common Law after the Revolutionary War.

The first annual meeting of the Maine State BAR Association was held at the Senate Chambers in Augusta in 1892. Why did they meet in a State building, who in authority gave them the permission? Charles F. Libby gave his presentation; his address was entitled “Legal Reforms”. The principle thrust of his speech was to advocate the merger of law and equity along the lines of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873, a forerunner of our modern Rules of Court.

There it is, people, the confession! How much clearer can it be? Libby’s speech was to advocate the merger of law and equity along the lines of the English Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873. The people of the United States, no longer lived under the Crown or its English Laws. Why were these BAR Lawyers willing to merge and bring back the English Supreme Court and change Common Law? Silsby records that there was public resistance, He is quoted “There is a huge predisposition to leave the law alone”, but did that stop them? No! It is obvious that the need for their legal reform was more important than the needs of the public. Silsby showed that the people were ignored and he even admits the lawyers' were more focused on Libby’s speech: “this address set the theme of reform, which absorbed the attention of the BAR meetings until World War 1”.

For the record, the establishment of “law & equity” is not recognizable under “Common Law”. The United States Constitution Amendment VII, is written: In suits of common law, ……., the right of trial by jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the united States, than according to the rules of the common law.”The Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 6 is written: To have a speedy trial, …, by a jury of the vicinity, …, but by judgement of his peers or the law of the land.

That means, in a common law court, in the United States, a person has the right to have the Constitutional secured right to a speedy trial by a local jury of his peers or the law of the law of the land.

11

So where does law & equity fit in. First of all in the equity law, the judge can give his opinion instead of a trial by jury. This tells you right away that law & equity is not common law if the judge can pass judgement instead of a jury, therefore it is fraudulent and unconstitutional.

Silsby explains that during the “Progressive Era” the court system was reformed by separating the trial court function from the Supreme Judicial Court and providing for the (nisi prius are civil cases before a jury) Superior Court in 1930. This is during the time that they changed the county courts to a District Court that was no longer “within and for the county.” The District Courts are really a state court. While the reader is at it, also look up the Communist Lawyers Guild, which started in 1936 and was considered the “Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party”.

It has taken 22 years for someone to pick up on this issue. Anyone who has studied the “Progressive Era” would know that this period of time in our history was pivotal, a time that most people are not even aware of because it is well hidden. Marx & Engels had already written their omnipresent “Communist Manifesto” (1842), The French had already spent a century trying to throw off the chains of suppression, Russia was in constant revolt against their family of Czars, and Germany was under a suppressive system of government controlled by military leaders. England and Italy had Monarchs and royal families. The Arab countries were under the Caliphate. The Communist Manifesto and Socialism looked good to many of these Nations, and it spilled over into our own government leaders.

Wilson was a student of two professors that in their early years in Germany, were students of Marx & Engels theory. The real beginning of American Socialism and Communism started with Wilson. During the late 40’s, the Democrat party violently split into three factions, the northern democrats, the southern Dixiecrats and the progressive that support socialist & communist Germany & Russia. These separations today have somewhat stayed the same, there are a mixture of high & low information Democrats, liberals and the progressives have not changed their socialist & communistic views. The readers just need to know that the “Progressive Era” is still in progress, but for now, this was the start of American Socialism and Communism; the lawyers were on the ground floor, and Silby admits it!

A list of the reforms proposed by the Maine State BAR Association during the first 25 years (1891-1916) of its existence is distressing and tends to show the public resistance to reforms proposed by the legal profession. But once again, public resistance is ignored as the Maine Bar Association pushes forward with its progressive approach. With the infiltration of the lawyers in the legislature and the governor’s office, and with the camaraderie of the court system, the public had no one to support their rights.

Note: According to the booklet, Libby’s proposed reform of merging law and equity did not become wholly effective until 1959 and finalized in 1966. Another proposed reform, accepted to this day, was to allow courts to appoint the clerks rather than have popular elections. Everything is designed to keep it all “in-house”!

12

Page #11-12

The education of the Maine BAR Association members was an important part of their future plans and direction, and to the undermining of the future rights of the Maine people. The early members of the BAR realized that all members needed educational continuity, essentially to be on the same page, who could argue that point, it is logical.

President of the Maine State BAR Association, Charles Libby gave his annual address entitled “Legal Education”. Much of his information was in collusion of the American BAR Association. He stated “It is not to be forgotten that the character and quality of the education of the Maine BAR Association does not concern alone its members, (it) affects as well public and private interest…..”. On the advice of the American BAR Association, the committee of Legal Education drafted a bill to create a “State Board of BAR Examiners” to consist of 5 “Competent Lawyers” responsibility to require the registration of potential students before they begin their education of law and to assist them through the process. This committee would essentially follow the student and provide direction for acceptance to the Maine BAR; the bill passed in 1899. He then pointed out the participation of lawyers in the great issues of the history of the country, “both in shaping institutions and laws, and in molding and directing public sentiment”.

All of this would seem logical if the Maine BAR, American BAR and International BAR Associations did not have an agenda. What is dangerous is that the BAR Lawyers are a tight community and they keep things in house. Because the court system is basically lawyers on different levels; Attorney, District Attorney, Attorneys General and Justices, they in total can basically do what they want without oversight. And, this is exactly what they did! If they can grab onto and get a hold onto a potential student, train them with a controlled curriculum, pass them with standardized tests that are structured to their standards and then accept them into the BAR. Once they are in the BAR they can climb the ladder to chief justice. All one big neat package and no one to stop them by law, because they are the law!

Other important issues discussed at Libby’s address were “Legal Reform and Land Transfer Reform”. Not much is said about Land transfer Reform, but I am sure that if we took a turn to study this issue, I am sure that we would find the same type of intrusion, unlawful taxes and/or an approach effecting property rights or the taking of property unconstitutional.

Page #24 & #25

At the 50th anniversary (1941) meeting of the Maine Bar Association, Judge Raymond Fellows spoke of the origins and functions of the Superior Court. He said: “ The Superior Court is the court that in the twinkling of a eye makes the law; it makes the law between the question and the answer; and so good does it make the law that it takes six able-bodied men, working six months and working day and night, to convince themselves that the Superior Court is wrong and that the exceptions should be sustained.”

What arrogance for a judge to think that he has the power to blatantly defy Constitutional Law! It is not the court that can make law; it is not in their power or authority to do so, for they are

13

judicial, not legislative! This is called an activist court! Activist courts and judges are quite common in countries that have weak structures and Laws. The Constitution of Maine, Article 4, part third, section 1 is written clearly that, “The Legislature, …, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this state, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.

There are only two explanations for the Judges overbearing pride and superior manner; Either, he never read or understood the Maine Constitution, Article 4, part third, section 1. Or he did not care, respect, or support (according to his Oath) the Maine Constitution, Article 4, Part Third, Section 1. Either choice is not a proper and lawful manner in which a Judge should believe or act!

A CENTURY OF LAW & JUSTICE(The Second Half)

Page #30

By the middle of the 20th century, Common Law was still recognized by only a few lawyers. At an annual meeting in 1951, Justice Edward F. Merrill addressed those who attended. His article deemed “the most consulted paper published in the M.S.B.A.” The article in volume 40 is called “Some Suggestions on Taking a Case to the Law Court”. At that time, he had the reputation of being the best Common Law pleader in Maine. Silsby slips up and shows his disdain for Common Law when he remarks that Merrill’s article is: “now of only historical interest”. Silsby goes on to demean the common law process by saying that “the appeal process in Common Law was bewildering”. As if the current so-called “legal process” is not bewildering! It is quite apparent that the waters have been intentionally muddied by members of the Bar.

A REVOLUTION(New Rules for Procedure)

Page # 33 - #36

Up to this point of the report, I have gleaned excerpts, comments and quotes and I have added my own comments. However, to get the gist of this section, I feel it prudent to copy word for word, so that nothing can be taken out of context. (Emphasis is added.)

[Begin] “The greatest revolution in the history of the courts, law, and lawyers in Maine began with a speech by Justice Frances W. Sullivan at the summer meeting at the Samoset, Wednesday morning, August 29, 1956. He had been asked to speak at the beginning of the summer on Pleading and Practice. In his speech he said, “The invitation indicated that there was a rather lively interest amongst our BAR in a survey of our system. It is a long, long time since any comprehensive, official reappraisal has been entertained.” There was indeed a lively interest in changing the Common Law pleadings and procedure. The younger members of the Maine BAR Association, had had virtually no training in

14

Common Law procedure. Most law schools did not offer a course in it. Harvard Law School, for instance, based its course in civil procedure upon the Federal rules of Procedure. Owing to this general lack of training in Common Law procedure, the Maine bar examiners had given up conducting an integrated examination in Common Law pleading and had downgraded it to a question or two in the miscellaneous part of the examinations.

The institute of Judicial Administration, Justice Sullivan said, (he) had classified the states according to pleading and practice systems and found seven Common Law states – Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – four of them in New England. It was on the whole very difficult to carry on with Common Law pleadings.

Justice Sullivan further commented that an adequate study “will require at least a few years of research and concentration by many fine talents. The subjects are of sufficient importance to justify any pains exerted upon them.”

As noted before, the question of changing the rules of civil procedure and practice surfaced at the first annual meeting of the Association in 1892. [End]

Another completely in your face obvious confession, this section of the 100 year booklet is the most damning, unjustifiably blatant, disgusting, and unconstitutional action since the creation and acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The first sentence says it all , the greatest revolution in the history of the courts, law, and lawyers in Maine. They slipped this revolution right past everyone and not one shot was fired, but the casualties are great and the innocent are still the victims to this day.

Did something catch your attention: “Justice Sullivan said, (he) had classified the states according to pleading and practice systems and found seven Common Law states – Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – four of them in New England. It was on the whole very difficult to carry on with Common Law pleadings.” Of these seven states, five of them (Maine was part of Massachusetts) were part of the 13 colonies (coincidence?). Vermont and Florida also became states quite early in the game before the lawyers reformed the other states laws to corporate/administrative law. Were not these states holdouts until the criminals over powered and out voted those whom believed in Common Law?

Of course there was a lively interest in changing the Common Law pleadings and procedure; it was the original goal to destroy Common Law pleadings and procedure. The next statement and conclusion made by Justice Francis W. Sullivan is absurd, ridiculous and ludicrous. Question, if the younger members of the Maine State BAR Association had virtually no training in Common Law procedure, would it not make sense to educate and train them, instead of ignoring the Common Law?

If most law schools did not offer a course in Common Law; Harvard Law School and others, for instance, could have re-introduced the course. The graduates that finished the first year would have been a needed comity in their community and the lawyers that did not understand Common

15

Law could have taken the course as postgraduates. But the plan was not to strengthen Common Law, but to let it slide away from sight slowly, but surely.

If you refer back to pages 11 & 12 of the 100 years of Law & Justice (page 13 of this report), you will see that it was the Maine BAR Association that sought and acquired full control of the education system. It was the Maine BAR Association that dumbed down the young lawyers, it was the Maine BAR Association who caused this lack of education, training, and knowledge of Common Law.

This lack of availability of courses in Common Law is by willful design! It was the original Maine BAR Association (1891) that wanted and established the complete control, and a lawful ability to educate and train and accept whom they wanted. The removal of Common Law was well designed early in this project. The U.S. & Maine Constitutions cannot exist together with English/European Law and the Maine BAR Association knew this. They knew that eventually, European law would eventually be dominant.

All that was needed then was to openly change and reform procedures that would eventually bury and hide Common Law. Not all Lawyers would agree at that time, but those that resisted would eventually be coerced, bullied and dragged to submit or be chastised by the leaders of lawyers, teachers of the law and judges.

To push the rule and procedural change/reform, after the Sullivan speech, Israel Bernstein offered a motion that the Maine State BAR Association recommend and urge the Legislature to enact a statute empowering the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to prescribe rules to the several courts. The State BAR was polled and mailed a brief statement of a motion to vote by ballot on two questions. 1. Should the rules of procedure be changed?2. Should the rules be changed by the Legislature or the Court? Of the 656 members, 32 members voted nay and 152 voted for changing the rules and giving the court authority; is this essentially giving the fox complete access to the chicken coop? Chief Justice Williamson announced and set the mood to shut up and except the final vote, he said, “In approaching our study, no one of us must take the view ‘I am for the federal rules’ or ‘I am for common law pleading’. We must first find the facts before we reach conclusions.

Stop and think for one moment, of the 656 members, 32 members voted nay and 152 voted for the motion. When you do the math, just 22% of the members voted for the motion. That means many of the members did not vote; if this were a mandated vote, there may have been a different outcome. This vote was not won by a plurality or even a majority of one vote. But yet no one contested the vote. I did the math, why couldn’t they?

Professor Richard H Field of the Harvard Law School gave a progress report to the members at the summer meeting in 1958. He said, “that the Advisory Committee had early on voted to use the federal rules as a framework with such modifications as seem advisable for Maine.” Field commented about the dread most lawyers had about the new rules as follows: “None of us, I suppose, really relishes the idea that a store of painfully acquired knowledge is to be swept away

16

and that we are to be reduced to a position of equality with those who never acquired that knowledge.”

17

MORE REFORM(The Association Reorganizes)

Page # 37

As with the last section, I will copy word for word for the sake of keeping the intent within its context. (Again, the emphasis is added.)

[Begin] “Never before in Maine had such a radical change taken place with respect to a fundamental body of learning, the old learning in Common Law pleading and equity pleading almost all cast away and an entirely new system replacing it .” [End]

[Begin] “But the process of change and reform which began in 1956 and lasted until 1981 covered not only procedural reform but substantial reform, court organizational reform, and Bar Association reform consisting of a partial unification of the Bar and a completely new organization of the Maine State Bar Association . ” [End]

[Begin] “Next after the new Civil Rules was the creation of the Maine District Court 1961, Uniform Commercial Code 1964, Maine’s Rules of Criminal Procedure 1965, Reorganization of the Maine State Bar Association 1968, an Act to Provide Elected District Attorney’s 1973, Court Administration Act 1975, Maine Rules of Evidence 1976, Maine Criminal Code 1976, partial unification of the Bar 1978, Administrative Procedure Act 1978, and the Maine Probate Code 1981.” [End]

Another revealing, blatant confession, combined with braggadocio - and again without any remorse! The author admits to the crime, he admits “Never before in Maine had such a radical change taken place with respect to a fundamental body of learning, the old learning in Common Law pleading and equity pleading almost all cast away and an entirely new system replacing it . ” When you look at this as a historic event, they completed this in 200 years, from the inside and without a war.

Page #40

Another attending member of the 1956 meeting, Sumner Bernstein, moved that the Maine BAR Association support the proposed merger of the University of Maine and Portland University Law School “to encourage and foster legal education in this state”. Of course the motion did pass, but I quote from the 100-year booklet: “(this) set the legal profession in Maine on the most important single course of the century. The law school which resulted has been one of the most important legal institutions to develop since the old law school was discontinued just after World War 1.”

I would believe that at this point of the meeting, would it not have been prudent to also make the motion that if any young lawyers that did not have “Common Law knowledge”, that this new

18

merger should also include a comprehensive course in “Common Law”? But you have to remember that the key theme of this meeting was a Revolution, a change, a reform of Constitutional law, a destruction of Common Law. Remember the opening quote at this meeting by Justice Frances W. Sullivan “The greatest revolution in the history of the courts, law, and lawyers in Maine”.

19

The Association(Administration of Justice)

Page #41

Once again, I copy word for word, (with emphasis added): “As we have seen the Great Revolution in the administration of (the) justice system was well under way by the 1960’s. The Bar Association was at the leading edge of all the activity. Many ideas for change originated among the members of the Association, while proponents of other ideas petitioned the Association's support.”

They are admitting again that it was a great revolution to dismantle and destroy the Common Law and the Constitutional Courts. The Maine Bar Association is taking the credit and the responsibility, how gracious! However, they fail to mention and give credit to where credit is due and that is to all the lawyers that were elected to the legislature and as governors. Without their infiltration and help to guarantee passage of resolves and bills, the legal system of Maine would have remained Constitutional.

Remember the quote on page # ii of the 100-year booklet (page # 4) of this report: Silsby boasted that; lawyers as a separate class have participated in the governing of this state and have dominated in the numbers of the high public offices in Maine. As a reminder; 75% of U.S. Senators, 65% of the U.S. House members, and over 50% of the Maine Governors have been lawyers.”

The Author continues: “The law school continued to receive the enthusiastic support of the members of the Association. He quotes reports from Dean Edward Godfrey’s yearly report, which confirms the close relationship between the Association/Corporation in assisting the Law School Committee in three different areas: Completion of the law school library. Increasing the student body. Students acquiring accreditation.

My question to this is obvious: What gives a private association/corporation the right to focus and target an educational process of this magnitude, especially to a supposedly trusted group of people to unknowingly and innocently move in a direction to dismantle and destroy the Common Law and Constitution of Maine?

The school's private law library is a major aid and key component in the educational process for the new young lawyers. A person’s knowledge is obviously based on what the person studies and learns. If the Maine Bar Committee controls the academic studies and the curriculum, and the school controls the knowledge of the student, they have succeeded in plans to provide front line soldiers in their great revolution! Control a law student’s research, curriculum and knowledge, and you have produced what the Maine BAR Association expects of a protégée/protégé!

20

Page # 42

The author refers to a letter, dated in the year 1961 from then Governor John Reed to John P. Carey, President of the Maine BAR Association. The letter proposed that the Association put together a committee to evaluate the qualifications of lawyers suggested for appointment to the Bench, something along the lines of the system of the American BAR Association with respect to Federal Bench appointments. A plan was put together similar to the American BAR Association’s plan. The appointed committee would have jurisdiction to evaluate and rank the potential appointees as either “exceptionally well qualified”, “well qualified”, “qualified”, or “not qualified”.

Think about this for a second: If the Governor proposed that the Maine BAR Association create such a committee, was he aware that the Maine Bar was responsible for the dismantling and destruction of the Maine Constitution and the original Maine Court System. If the Governor was aware of their conspiracy, was he not part of it, or was he misled and fooled? Or was the Governor asking for help to make these decisions because he did not have the ability to nominate a potential Lawyer on his own. And lastly, why did the Governor think that the American BAR Association had any creditability to help the Maine Bar choose a potential Lawyer?

ASSOCIATION GROWTH(Continuing Legal Education – Public Image – Community Involvement)

Page #57

As the years passed, the Maine BAR Association evolved. Their power and control in the Legislature, the Governor's Office and through the people became stronger as more unconstitutional Resolves were fraudulently created to weaken and change the intent of the Constitution. Unconstitutional and repugnant bills were also created and passed into Maine law.

In the year 1968, the Association undertook to locate and acquire the names and addresses of all lawyers in the state. A continuing Legal Education program was established. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island began the Tri-State BAR gatherings for the interchange of ideas and information, and out of this, they formed the Northern New England BAR Association.

Page # 58

At the 1970 annual meeting, the Maine BAR Association adopted the American BAR Association’s new CODE of Professional Responsibility. The Maine BAR Association also increased its involvement in the legislative process in the Maine. This relationship involving the American Bar Association leads me to believe that other states may also have been hijacked by the same movement working on a nationwide program.

21

Page #60

In 1978, the Supreme Judicial Court by order established the Board of Overseers of the BAR. The Board’s function was to include operation of a central registration of attorneys. All members of the BAR, as a condition of their right to practice law in Maine, were required to pay a reasonable fee. This is quite interesting; in the past, a Lawyer was able to use Common Law procedures and freelance. Over the century, as the Maine BAR Association evolves, they are given the power (by law) to takes names of all lawyers, and then they create their own corporate by-laws and legislation that supports their agenda. As a result, a lawyer (by Maine law) has to be educated by the BAR Association’s standards and accepted & admitted to the BAR, by the BAR Associations standards, before that lawyer can practice law in a Maine Court System. They sewed it all up into one neat little package and no one saw it happening!

Page #61

In 1980, a pilot project for the improvement of the Maine Court appointment system was established in the counties of Kennebec, Somerset, Penobscot and Piscataquis. Funds were provided by the Maine Criminal Justice Planning Assistance Agency. It was now 4 years since the Governor's Executive Council was abolished (in direct defiance to the Maine Constitution) and no one challenged the resolution. As an outgrowth of recommendations of the Governor’s Select Commission on Court Facilities gave recommendations, the Maine BAR Association took an active role in support of legislation to fund new court facilities. My question is; why create a Governor’s Select Commission on Court Facilities controlled by lawyers? The Maine BAR Association recognized the need to take a more active role in legislative activities because they believed that there was not enough “lawyers in the legislature”. Why didn’t the People's Legislators and the Governor recognize that that they were infiltrated, misguided and misled?

22

THE MAINE BAR(Who We Are)

Page #65

At the 1989 annual meeting, Chairman of the Consortium on the Future of the Maine Legal Profession, Mike Horton, explained the results of a survey of Maine lawyers after the Maine BAR Association and the Board of Overseers had jointly sponsored a study of the Maine legal profession. The results of the survey offered “a valuable picture of who we are (the Maine State BARR Association)”. This study was made in celebration of the CENTENARY ANNIVERSARY of the Maine BAR Association in the coming year of 1991. He noted: “the survey was mailed to every Maine Lawyer (3150) and that 1100 attorneys returned responses resulting in a 35% response rate. What happened to the other 65%?

Horton explained that one third of the 1100 respondents practiced in the Portland Maine area. Horton also made the point that Portland was like: “a legal magnet attracting the preponderance of new attorneys as a place to practice law. Not surprisingly, that phenomenon was unmistakably reflected in the survey findings”.

This information is also not surprising to me either, as it is widely known that the City of Portland is called “the republic of Portland”, because of its multi-level socialistic approach that recognizes “Social Justice” instead of “Equal Justice”. I would not call the massing of young lawyers a legal magnet, but rather a comfort zone of like minds or birds of a feather; in this case, a flock of vultures.

Horton also pointed out that only 20% of the Lawyers (630) came from the small towns and rural areas. In perhaps a related demographic finding, half of the responding lawyers (550) indicated that they had immigrated to the state of Maine to practice law” The author finished by saying: “The message is clear: Maine is a great place to live and practice law”!

Horton does not mention what type of law, but by now the reader should understand that the Maine State BAR Association centennial celebration and what they had completed under the nose and in the open does lead to a victorious celebration for the people of Maine.

THE MAINE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION(Into the Second Century)

Page # 69

For the first time, in almost a century, the Maine State BAR Association developed and adopted a Mission Statement, which contains five purposes:1. To promote and serve the interests of lawyers in general and members of the Association in

particular.2. To improve the functioning of the profession and to enhance public understanding of and

respect for lawyers.3. To promote the due administration of justice.

23

4. To bring the special skills of lawyers and the profession to bear on the concerns of society as a whole.

5. To attain the purposes of the Association by all necessary and proper means .

The writer claims: “the mission statement will no doubt guide the development of the Association as its history enters the second century (of the Association)”. The above mission statement strongly reflects the unjustified, unwarranted, unimportant, outrageous, selfish, self centered, arrogant, one-sided puffed up character that is displayed by most Maine BAR Association attorneys today.

24

CONCLUSION

It is crystal clear that the lawyers/attorneys/esquires in Maine have done severe damage to the Maine people. This damage cannot be reversed for those who have been affected and we may never reverse the damage for the current or future populations. As I said in the beginning of this report, The dismantling of our Constitution and Maine Law since 1820, was not an accident or coincidence. After reviewing and studying all the historic proof, anyone, to include a seventh grader, could clearly see and understand that this Revolution to reform the Maine Courts, the Maine Legal system and the Maine Laws was a slow calculated attack on the Maine peoples Liberty & Freedom. What is despicable is, the Maine people trusted the Legislators and Governors to legislate laws that were not “repugnant to the Maine & U.S Constitution and were for the defense and benefit and for their protection of their rights. Also, what is criminal is, the Maine people put their faith and trust in their legal system, they trusted their lawyers and the District Attorneys, the Attorneys General and the Judges of the Court system.

I base my belief on the facts that I have provided in this report, that the leaders of the Maine State BAR Association and knowledgeable lawyers have purposely and blatantly ignored the Maine and U.S. Constitutions intent. The guilty have turned 180 degrees away from the constitutionally secured protections that were established by the founders of the U.S. and Maine Constitutions. Instead, repugnant Constitutional Amendments and legislative laws have been substituted and forced on the Maine people as “the New Law of the Land”.

Also, the Maine State BAR Association are a corporation and they have willfully given allegiance by Oath, by name, by theory, and by practice to a foreign agency/organization, the British Accredited Registry/Regency, known as the BAR.

There are three Oaths that are required to grant the Attorneys the privilege to serve the Maine public. Two of the Oaths are the same Oaths given to the Legislators and Governor of Maine. The third Oath is essentially given to the BAR, not to the state where they practice.

Missing from this booklet (100 Years of Law & Justice) is information of the fact that Maine Judges are chosen from the Maine Lawyers' club. Missing also is the fact that Judges need only to be “Learned in the Law”, which means: knowing Constitutional Laws, Common Laws, GOD'S Laws or Natural Laws, not necessarily legislative law instituted by the Maine State BAR Association! Also missing and most important is the fact that courts (judges, prosecutors and lawyers) today use Corporate/administrative law and not Constitutional Law and Common Law.

Many innocent people have been found guilty who were and are railroaded by repugnant, unconstitutional legislative law. Many of these people were not given their day in court that would have been recognized under Common Law. On the other hand, many violators of the law are found guilty rightfully, but hey were not found guilty under Common Law. This is how the courts have gotten away with the smoke and mirrors. Many laws are common sense; therefore even some lawyers are fooled by their leadership because some of these laws make sense. The illusion of these logical laws is the source of difficulty and confusion. This makes revealing the true Common Law difficult, because some legislative law does recognize the Constitution and

25

Common/GOD given and Natural Laws, but they are intermingled and entangled with the unlawful legislated law.

The real problem is how the current court process is conducted, ignoring constitutionally secured protected rights, and how and why violators are accused, prosecuted and found guilty. Often this is conducted through the cunning manipulations of “plea bargaining”, which are now considered legal under the past law & Equity Acts that give the power to the Judges to make Juryless verdicts. Do not be confused by the old adage because “the ends do not justify the means”.

The only answer to the dilemma of the entire judicial system is to return to the original intentions and beliefs of our founders. The courts of Maine need to return to the values and structure that were mandated by the original intents of the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. If the judicial system in Maine is to be lawful, respected and revered, the Common Law Courts must be re-opened; the bench must be populated with lawful judges, prosecutors, attorneys, or even lay persons that are “Learned in the Law”. Current judges, prosecutors and attorneys must repeal, resign, rescind their allegiance to the Maine State BAR Association, the American BAR Association, the International BAR Association and the British Accredited Registry/Regency.

The proper path to use to stop the unlawful and legal plunder, of the Maine people, is to remove the direct influence of the Maine State BAR Association Lawyers that are elected to the Maine Legislature and Executive positions. Maine Lawyers that have been elected as legislators have already given their allegiance to the Maine State BAR Association. Some may say that to be fair, they must be given the right to finish their term in the Legislature by the year 2014. I happen to hold a different position; supposedly, if they were lawyers already and/or in preparation to becoming a good legislator, it would have been prudent to have previous read and definitely studied the Constitution of Maine. There is no excuse that they did not read or understand the Constitution, “Ignorance of the (Constitutional) law is no excuse”!

Article III – Sections 1 & 2 are quite clear as to the fact that the three departments must be separated and not influenced by each other. Therefore the lawyers knew they were infiltrating and combing the Judicial and Legislative departments; they did this treasonous act by their own willful volition. They, in affect, did war against the Maine Constitution! I say that such a blatant act must be met, not with mercy, but with swift action. This swift action can only be the immediately removal from their office, never to be allowed to serve as officer of the court, court officer or a legislator or any position that serves the public! I would however go one step further and bring this issue to a Grand Jury, then to the Common Law Court in Kennebec County, to be viewed by a Commissioned Judge, learned in law, Common Law Prosecutor. Than finally, tried by a jury for their treasonous acts against the Constitution of the State of Maine and the people that live in the State of Maine!

Holding a position as a legislator while holding a position as a lawyer (officer of the court) in the judicial system is a direct conflict of interest. This was a position that our founding fathers feared; and that is why they created three separate governmental departments to be kept separate and to be not influenced by each other! Holding both positions was never authorized, or supposed to happen. A legislator creates Law (legislative department) and the Lawyer defines or

26

supports the law (judicial department). The same holds true with a lawyer that becomes a Governor, because the Governor is the executive department, not judicial!

The Legislative, Judicial, and the Executive departments must always remain separated and not combined or tyranny will ensue; just like what is happening today in Augusta and Washington! A public servant cannot and must not serve two masters. Reference: The Constitution of the State of Maine, Article III, §§ 1 & 2. Section # 1. Powers distributed. The powers of this Government shall be divided into 3 distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial.Section # 2. To be kept separate. No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.

Questions to contemplate:1. Where would we be today if the Maine State Bar Association did not purposely control the

education and curriculum from 1891 and where would we be today if the young lawyers were not distracted away from learning Common Law, and taught Common Law at the Maine law schools?

2. If the legislative and executive were not infiltrated and overwhelmed with Maine BAR Association Lawyers, would the Legislators and the Governors have not dismantled the Maine Constitution and the Common Law Procedures that protect the People's GOD given, unalienable, natural rights?

3. Now that this information is exposed, will the honest legislators and Governors have the fortitude to correct the path to return to the Maine and U.S. Constitution intent and fight the treasonous path of the Maine BAR Association’s revolution that finally destroyed the Maine Court system?

4. Is it possible to ever return the Constitution and the real Maine Court system back under Common Law?

5. What will happen to the honest Maine people who try to expose the lawyers, judges, and prosecutors who support the Maine BAR Association/Corporation?

6. What actions are you willing to participate in?

27

For your knowledge, the following information is found on the maine.gov website:

§805. Title 4: JUDICIARY Chapter 17 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Subchapter 1: ADMISSION TO PRACTISE

§806. Attorney's oath Upon admission to the bar, every applicant shall, in open court, take and subscribe an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and take the following oath, or, in the case of an applicant conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, such applicant shall make appropriate affirmations to the same effect: [1975, c. 66, §5 (AMD).]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God." SECTION HISTORY 1975, c. 66, §5 (AMD). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing that jumps right out to me, and should be for you, concerning the lawyers' Oath is; not once is the United States Constitution or the Maine Constitution referenced. This may be the reason why the Lawyers have to take the Oaths found in the Maine Constitution Article 9, Section 1.

On the other hand however, there may be a reason that there are no references to the Maine and U.S Constitutions; please refer to page 18 of the 100 Years of Law & Justice, it states that the Oath for the lawyers was a copy under the British Crown Court of 1701.

If the Constitutions were not in existence then, it stands to reason that there could be no reference to any Constitution, but it would have made good sense to up-date their Oath to incorporate the State of Maine and U.S. Constitutions. This may be the reason as to why the Lawyers are directed to give the two Oaths in the Maine Constitution Article 9, Section 1.

What a wonderful Oath they take! They solemnly swear: “that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court….”. Without reflection of my report, do you believe that they have done no falsehoods in their own courts? The leaders and most lawyers know that they have intentionally, knowingly, willfully and purposely reformed the Constitutional Common Law courts. And they are blatantly aware that they ignore the real Common Law court system. All of them have committed willful fraud and treasonous acts and are guilty of violating their Oaths!

28

A tragic unfortunate shift of Justice is the interpretation of the lawyers responsibility of giving their clients their day in court and due justice, not protection from due justice. If a lawyer has knowledge of the guilt of their client, and they hide it from the court proceedings, they are in violation of their 3 Oaths, Constitutional and Maine laws. If the lawyer then asks for a lesser sentence for their client, but does not “give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented”; they have violated their Oath and the rights of those that are seeking justice from the court system. Are the lawyers subject only to protecting the lawful rights of their clients, or to the Constitutional protections for all of the People? This situation would not have happened under Common Law Proceedings.

There was a time when legislators, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and officers of the law took their Oaths of office seriously. Today, if you were to ask any of the Judges, Prosecutors and lawyers if they understood their Oaths, or if they have studied or even read the Maine or U.S. Constitution just once, they would almost always answer no! Why do we allow them to continue?

That is not to say that all Lawyers are willfully or knowingly working for the English Government, the elite banking system, a foreign entity or a private corporation. If they are just following the directions of the Maine State Bar Association, they are tricked into believing that they are doing good. If a lawyer fails to know or understand Common Law and the Constitutions, they were fooled and improperly educated!

A little bit of trivia, of all three Oaths that a judge, prosecutor and attorney gives, the two Constitutional Oaths end with “So help me God"; While the attorneys Oath ends with the phrase “So help you God". We all know who the me is, but who is the you? Does the word you as the “third person” exclude the person that is taking the Oath and instead giving the Oath to you (someone else) or themselves? I am confused!/? There is something wrong with this Oath and I am wondering if it is by design. As it is, to make this Oath meaningful, this would depend on whether they are asked “Do you solemnly...?” or are “repeating the oath itself after the oath giver reads it”, or simply answering, “I do.” after it is read to them.

Lastly, is it possible for a Lawyer that takes tree Oaths, to function in their capacity and serve the public without knowing and understanding the Maine and U.S. Constitutions? Is there any question as to why we as a state and nation are collapsing? Do you think as we collapse as a nation, that other leading countries are going to help keep us from falling, or are they going to help us fall and collapse in the muck that the criminals created for us? When the collapse does happen, will the lawyers, judges and prosecutors just transfer their allegiance to the victorious countries? It is easy to turn a blind eye to the future, but even a child could see what is coming, can you?

29