Georgia public defender S.C. Ruffey’s comment about his fondness for the Uniform Commercial Code brought to mind a special kind of character that pops up from time to time in a criminal law practice.

[Digression: Austin criminal-defense lawyer Jamie Spencer talks about “how to rank high on Google’s natural results.” I have heard — and it makes sense — that a page that uses the phrase “Houston criminal-defense lawyer” or “Houston criminal defense attorney” will rank higher on Google than a page by a Houston lawyer that talks about criminal defense trial lawyering without those words strung together in that order, even though it’s not usually necessary for a Houston lawyer practicing criminal defense to use the words “Houston criminal defense” in a post about the subject. I’d like Defending People to pop up at the top of a Google search for “Houston criminal-defense lawyer” or “Houston criminal attorney,” but blatantly inserting those phrases into a post has always seemed a bit obnoxious. Your thoughts? End of digression.]

This recurring character is the non-lawyer who has discovered the Secret to the American legal system. In Coeur D’Alene they have their militias; in Texas we have our Republic-of-Texas types; you might have your own local branch of folks who have discovered the Secret.

Sometimes the Secret lies in Admiralty (so that a court displaying an American flag without gold fringe [or is it with?] doesn’t have jurisdiction over a criminal case.

Sometimes the Secret lies in “personal sovereignty,” so that if your name is written in capital letters in a legal proceeding it isn’t you but your “straw man” that is involved unless you consent to being affected.

Generally part of the Secret is that all lawyers are members of the BAR, the British Accredited Registry, agents of the crown whose job is to transfer a tenants’ rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).

Here’s an example of all of these notions at play in one mind:

I am not a lawyer but I do know a little about the law (mostly UCC), so please don’t take this as an attack on your legal competence but just as additional info that you may or may not have.

The second writ will most likely remain unanswered as well, primarily because we are not indemnifying the court (we are not bonding them).

I have found 2 options:

1) File Habeas in admiralty with bond as responded (court must produce Bond)

2) File original rule C in admiralty (Bill in libel) and sue for the value of the bond as defendant to make the court put up the bond. (based on Fed Rule 26)

In other words we are clearly asking the courts for the evidence of why they are holding X instead of arguing involuntary acceptance, and we force them to produce the bond.

Here is some case law for that:

THE CARTONA 297 Federal Reporter 1st series pg. 827

As it stands, I bet, we (the petitioners) have waived the privilege for Habeas Corpus (“HC”) because if you checked, you might find that the court has probably issued the writ but not responded to us (there is a $1000 fine for not issuing). A more effective process may be to file it with the clerk and hand serve it on the Sheriff who is then required to return or answer the writ and bring forth the body. If he does not answer the writ or bring forth the body he can be arrested and held until he does. Unless there is an answer, a return, the Judge cannot proceed in a habeas hearing. If there is no return there is no joinder and the state is not present to show cause.

In addition I would like to revoke the signature from X’s plea. What process would you follow? I’d prefer to stay within the UCC and away from TX Statutes.

. . . .

These ideas are based on research. Since everyone is allowed to defend themselves but only BAR lawyers are allowed by law to defend others but by oath have sworn to protect the courts – in my Real Estate dealings that would qualify as a conflict of interest.

Attached is a book about admiralty. Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the Constitution spells out who has judicial power and Title 28 sec.1333 supports that point.

Regardless, arguing about facts is not going to help, no matter what court we are in.

I am about to get a writ of execution for a judgment in estoppel without ever stepping foot into district court (other than the filing of course). I am just waiting for the certified copy of my UCC1 financing statement. It all happened under the UCC with a notary. It took me less than a month to complete the process. Now the matter is in stare decisis and I will have the sheriff liquidate the defendants’ assets to cover the judgment. My lawyers from Kit & Kaboodle didn’t even get a proper settlement.

Something I am doing seems to work.

When I have found the UCC section to revoke X’s signature I will let you know. It’s probably UCC 3-418, I have to check.

. . . .

The US is a corporation too, so is the FED (privately held corp), the IRS (not a govn’t agency) and your ‘STRAWMAN’. Look at your credit cards, DL, and any other license or financial instrument with your name on it: it’s in CAPS everywhere! It’s actually not you, but an alter ego (STRAWMAN) you are VOLUNTARILY signing for. I can go on for days!

Since the US, the BAR etc are corporations the UCC is the foundation. That’s why the courts have to follow the UCC. I am not trying to undermine you or your expertise. Your support is much more helpful. All I want is to get X out of prison, and although my methods are unusual I guarantee you that I can prove everything I am saying here!

New York criminal-defense lawyer Scott Greenfield denies that there is a grand conspiracy of British Accredited Registry attorneys working to deprive the People of their rights:

The blawgosphere is primarily inhabited by lawyers, but we also have another group that seems to flit in and out according to their personal issues. No matter what gets posted, there’s no pleasing them. These are the conspiracy theorists, the ones who believe that all lawyers are evil and bent on total domination.

Two lawyers can barely agree on where to have lunch. The idea that they could agree on world hegemony is ludicrous. But there’s no arguing with these folks, who wear aluminum foil around their heads to protect them from the bar association shooting gamma rays at them. Even though they tend to write silly things, express opinion devoid of fact, and demand their “right” to be vulgar and angry, they still keep coming. How do we write for these people? How do we stop them from dragging the conversation into the gutter?

But you and I know better. See you at the BAR convention. Fnord.