Print this page
  There is an old warning promoted by the private Guilds of the Bar that presently control access to the law in almost every country, through their private courts and their private (case law) laws: “he who represents himself in court has a fool for a client”. In a sense, this is partially true on two fronts: knowledge of the law and courts and the genuine assistance of lawyers, barristers and attorneys.  
  So any decision to hire a lawyer, barrister and attorney should be based on a clear assessment of your situation, on clear facts of the legal industry and on knowledge of the true function and symbolism of appointing a lawyer, attorney or barrister when you go before the courts.  
  Above all, no one should rush one way or another to immediate appoint legal counsel without knowing clearly what they are doing, nor should anyone consider broad generalized and untrue claims that lawyers, attorneys and barristers are out to trick you and hurt you.  
  The vast majority of lawyers, attorneys and barristers are good people. Most entered the law, because they sought to make a difference. Yes, there are a few lawyers, attorneys and barristers that make phenomenal amounts of money, as well as those who have terrible reputations as being totally devoid of any morals or ethics. Yet the vast majority of lawyers, attorneys and barristers do not make huge sums of money and genuinely seek their best to help their clients to their maximum ability within the constraints of the rules of the private Guild of the Bar.  
  With these facts in mind, let us consider then the issue of the case for having legal representation from members of the private Guild before the private Guilds courts and the case against such representation. But first, let us look at the definition of what exactly is a lawyer, an attorney and a barrister?  
     
  The real meaning of lawyer, attorney and barrister  
  Like many legal terms, there appears an “official” version and definition of a word and then a hidden “true” definition of the word. The need to search and comprehend these “hidden” and “secret” meanings would not matter if not for the fact that these secret and hidden meanings to key legal terms have real effect in the private laws of the private courts of the private guild. Therefore, it is paramount to realize the true definition of Lawyer, Attorney and Barrister if one is to make an informed judgment about the best course of action.  
  The word Lawyer is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words lar/lares = (customary law) + iuro/iurare = (to swear, take an oath, to conspire) meaning literally “one who has sworn an oath to customary law (of the private Guild)”. The popularized meaning is “one who is authorized and licensed by the private Guilds of the Bar to practice law”.  
  The revelation of the real meaning of Lawyer is extremely important as it exposes that the role of the lawyer is more than simply an “agent”, but actually one who has made an oath to the private law of the private Guild first. This is critical as it means a lawyer by definition is duty bound to uphold the name and honor of their secret Guild above all other interests first meaning that when they enter the private commercial exchange of the Guild known as a “court”, they cannot possibly serve your interests ahead of the private Bar Guild, thus meaning lawyers are perpetually in a state of conflict of interest and dishonor.  
  The word Attorn or Attornment is from 16th Century combining the Latin words at = (to) + torno (turn, round off) meaning “To consent, implicitly or explicitly, to a transfer of a right.” Hence the word Attorney means literally “a person to whom rights have been transferred by consent, implicitly or explicitly”.  
  This revelation of the real meaning of Attorney is quite a bit different to the benign sounding claimed meaning “one appointed to represent another’s interests” as it does not make clear the real transfer of rights. Thus, granting “Power of Attorney” is granting one’s rights to another. As we will discuss later, the appointment of an Attorney for representation has deep implications on the limits of defense, particularly rendering much of the knowledge explained in these articles and knowledge of law irrelevant as a source of defense.  
  The word Barrister is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words baro = (dunce, incompetent) + sto/stare (to stand firm, to be in position) meaning literally “to stand/represent a dunce/incompetent”. The popularized meaning is “a student of the law (of the private Guild) that has been called to the Bar”.  
  Of the three words discussed so far, the revelation of the real meaning of Barrister is the most revealing and hence the most secretive for it reveals the specific implication of being represented by a Barrister meaning you by definition are deemed “incompetent”.  
  Now some may dispute the true origins of these words, especially some professionals known by such names. However, the etymology of words is difficult to hide when phonetics and meaning can be forensically determined through careful provenance.  
  There are of course a whole range of extreme claimed definitions for these same words, just as there are myths associated with the historical role of attorneys and barristers honoring a tradition dating back to Roman times. In fact, such stories and myths are just that – myths and deliberately false history as the role in Roman times now claimed by Attorney’s and Lawyers was called an Advocate and had nothing to do with the purpose of secretly declaring the defendant “incompetent”.  
  The word Advocate is from ancient Latin advocatio combing two even earlier Latin words ad (with)+vocare (voice) meaning literally “to assist in legal defense with one’s voice”. An Advocate was usually a professional actor, trained in the art of oration who then swore a solemn oath upon their testicles (from which we get the word testimony) to speak the truth as given by their client. Advocates were not permitted to offer legal advice, only to speak on behalf of their client.  
  In contrast, Attorneys are not required to pledge any kind of oath to uphold the interests of their clients first and in most cases will outright refuse. Similarly, Barristers in almost all cases will outright refuse to swear an oath to uphold the interests of their clients. As for lawyers, they are prevented according to their license to practice law to swear any such oath and if such an oath was given it would be proof of perjury capable of being presented to a private Guild court.  
  The modern legal system hijacked by the private guild of the Bars has absolutely nothing in common with ancient law or the principles that sustained the law of civilizations for millennia nor the historic role of the Advocate. Instead, if you hire a lawyer, an attorney or a barrister they are duty bound to serve the interests of their private Guild ahead of you, despite any promises to the contrary.  
     
  The case for hiring an attorney, lawyer or barrister  
  While the previous definitions may imply that to hire an attorney, lawyer or barrister would be a fatal mistake, the truth is there are good cases for hiring one or more, depending upon your knowledge of law, the matter of the controversy and your financial position.  
  If you are new to this information, cannot recited the Canons of Law defined by One Heaven and am not confident in public speaking or lack the self discipline to behave honorably and respectfully in court, then being represented by an attorney, lawyer or barrister may well be a good thing.  
  The most dangerous traits within a private court of the Guild is incompetence, arrogance and ignorance. Far too many people have lost everything and gone to prison because they believed they could enter into the private courts of a private guild under private law and usurp their public persona by behaving without respect, without competence and in complete ignorance.  
  The truth movement is littered with “remedy gurus” who even today preach defiance, dishonor, arrogance and completely incompetent “remedies” as the way to “win” at court. If you are someone who is trapped by such thinking and unwilling or unable to change then an attorney, lawyer or barrister would almost certainly be a better option than continuing to act in such stupidity.  
  Another reason for hiring and attorney, lawyer or barrister is if you have sufficient funds and the matter is not serious. You may be angered by the cost, but in many cases, the cost of using the members of the private guild to interact using the private laws of the guild in the commercial exchange (court) of the guild is cheaper than thinking you can defend yourself, particularly if you have lots of assets.  
  There are far too many examples of intelligent people who thought they could save a few thousand dollars defending themselves on a relatively minor matter in a guild court, only to find the court – upon sniffing assets and property to be stolen – resulted in major court issues, losing their assets and ending up with nothing.  
  This is not a threat, nor a generalization, The private courts of the guild are expert at “lawfully” stealing assets, particularly of those who they feel wish to “play” in their private realm. Unless you are completely competent, have your assets beyond the reach of the Bar and are willing to see some feathers fly, appointing attorneys, lawyers and barristers is probably a better option.  
  The final reason and a genuine reason is the fact that despite of the genuine corruptions and bias of the private Bar guild in all aspects of the law, most lawyers, barristers and attorneys are good and honorable people, who can genuinely help.  
  Unfortunately, the private guild does not hold its worst apples to account, nor promote any kind of stringent quality control to distinguish good attorneys from bad. However, to brand all lawyers, judges and members of the Bar as corrupt would be an absurdity and a grave insult to the outstanding public service and reputation of the vast majority of these people.  
  So consider these points in whether representation by members of the Bar is warranted in your situation  
     
  The case for not hiring an attorney, lawyer or barrister  
  Based on what has been discussed, the case for not hiring a Lawyer, Barrister or Attorney may appear self-evident. However, let’s review some real and concrete examples.  
  The first is competence- not knowledge and competence of the private (case law) laws of the private Guild, nor statute law nor court procedure, but competence in knowing who and what you are, including publishing your Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to Vital Statistics as asserting your Divine Rights.  
  If you are such a man or woman who has demonstrated such competence and is capable of acting with self discipline, respect and honor then self representation may be a sensible and logical option, no matter how grave the alleged charges.  
  A second logical reason, providing one is competent is options for remedy. By the very definition of what is a lawyer a barrister or an attorney, when one appoints a member of the private guild to represent you, you are in most cases declaring yourself in their courts as “incompetent” – something that severely limits your options for remedy.  
  In fact, an incompetent is severely limited by what can be negotiated in a private court of the private guild according to their private laws. In most cases, an incompetent is not permitted to object to procedure (because they are incompetent), they are not permitted to argue points of law, nor even is any non-consent regarded as legitimate.  
  However, a competent person is able to object to fraudulent procedure, is able to respectfully argue jurisdiction, is able to not-consent or comply by necessity without consent and even to object to any offer and suggest a counter offer.  
  While such options are available to a competent person capable of self-representation, in some countries the private Bar has succeeded in the ultimate injury to the law by not even permitting self representation. So, such a course of action is not without its risks.  
  Another reason may appear to be cost. However, the cost of legal representation versus self representation is actually a false reason. Instead, any such judgment should be based on competence and the points considered earlier and not simply on cost.  
     
Copyright © One-Heaven.Org Ab Initio. All Rights Reserved