INFORMED CITIZENS

informed with the truth about government

Home | Cause | Criminal| Civil | Resolution | Documents| Links

 When a MYTH is a LIE

If someone honestly believes something that is not true the belief is a Myth. But when a Myths is propagated by those who have a DUTY to know the TRUTH, it can be characterized as a Lie. Attorneys, including those who assume a position as a Judge or Justice, have a duty to know know the legal truths and to dispel legal myths. Unfortunatley many of them choose  to use their position of public trust to give the color, or appearance, of Truth to Myths.

This is a list of the MYTHS commonly utilized by Attorneys & Judges to deceive their clients and the public.
Trusted to SERVE as an Official in OUR Courts they deceive the public in violation of their fiduciary duty.

Judges have been given the "power to interpret" the law. 
Ours is an "adversary system" of justice. 
Ours is a "common law" based system of jurisprudence.
 The STATE is the sovereign, is immune from [law]suit or liability
Officials (public servants) are Immune
and the BIGGEST MYTH OF ALL:
 Jurisdiction

There are many Myths that have been propagated among our people about our Law and our System of Laws. KNOW these so that you will not be deceived and deprived of your god-given, natural, inherent & inalienable, Rights secured by the supreme Law of the Land. KNOW these, and let others know THE TRUTH, so that our Law and System of Laws is protected from the incompetent and the self-serving who have NO HONOR.

MYTH: Judges have been given the "power to interpret" the law.

TRUTH: Judicial Officials have a DUTY to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the Law. The interpretation myth  is the most destructive myth of all in created a misunderstanding of our Law and System of Laws. If one reads our Organic Law of July 4, 1776 one knows that it was Judicial Malfeasance that was a major cause of our revolt, revolution, and separation from the Judges of England. Promoters of this myth ground it in the 1793 opinion in the case of Marbury v. Madison. But they have not read the opinion, or have chosen to misrepresent what the First Chief Justice in our United States Supreme Court house. the Honorable Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his opinion for the Court. He emphatically stated that We the People of the United States established a system based on THE RULE OF LAW, and that the LAW binds Judicial Officials to honor the Law. Judges must be law-abiding. Judges must comply with the Law that secures the substantive Rights of the Individual, even if they do not like the Individual or the Law that protects the Individual. In England, and English colonies, Judges were appointed by King and they honored not the law, but the King who appointed them. The protected the King from accountability for his unlawful acts, and the unlawful acts of those the King appointed to perform the functions of government. SEE Article VI of our US Constitution. Judicial Officials, and ALL servants of the public are BOUND (tied down, limited, and ordered) by LAW. The Law may 'restrain' the individual citizen, but is binding on the official.

MYTH: Ours is an "adversary system" of justice.

TRUTH: Our is a CIVIL system of Justice. An adversarial system is war and it results in a never ending process. A CIVIL System is one where Court Officials, which includes those licensed to be professional lawyers (attorneys), and Judicial Officials, are bound by the Law that governs the process. This is the essences of 'due process of law'. Attorneys have a tendency to tell you that you are 'entitled' to a 'process'. They conveniently forget or conveniently fail to tell you that the 'process' is governed by 'law'. The "of law" part of the process is for the purpose of preventing our system from becoming adversarial. Judges evade the Law by ignoring the Law that governs their conduct in the performance of their function. The 'Rules' of Court are created by Judicial Officials as LAW that governs the conduct of Judicial Officials, and other Court Officials, such as Attorneys and Clerks. People, as Individuals, who are not Court Officers, are not 'bound' by these 'Rules'. People comply with the Rules of Court to the extent they are capable, to speed up the process, but the 'Rules' cannot be utilized as an excuse to deprive an Individual / Citizen of substantive Rights.

MYTH: Ours is a "common law" based system of jurisprudence.

TRUTH: Our Constitution is our "common law" to which every Judicial Official is bound. So, too, is our Declaration of Independence. It is on THIS common law that our system of Law operates. But those who have a duty to serve us as a Court Official (Attorneys & Judges) often propagate the MYTH that the opinion of a panel of Judicial Officials is "common law". They will then take a quote from an opinion, and often take that quote out of context, and present it to you as if it was God's Law with the power to overrule the supreme Law of our Land - our Organic Law and our Constitutions. What they are doing is the same as was done to the Great Charter of Liberties (the Magna Carta) first written in 1215, decreed by Parliament as the "common law of England", binding on every Judge of the Realm. But the Judges of England, including those in the colonies, were appointed by the King and chose to disregard the "common law" of England,  - the Magna Carta / Great Charter of Liberty - that functioned as a Constitution and Bill of Rights for the subjects of the English crown. As a result, the King's Judges gave rise to our revolution and independence.

SUB-MYTH, Judicial precedent is binding on other cases.

Closely related to the foregoing  is a MYTH to believe Judges are bound by the "law" made by the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of a State. TRUTH: This is only partially true. Ours system is grounded in the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and of the State where the law is being applied. And this supreme Law of our Land is grounded on the Organic Law that preceded it = the Declaration of Independence of the United States and the Declaration of Independence of Texas. The 'opinion' of Judicial Officials, including those sitting in our Supreme Courthouses, is NOT common law and it is NOTbinding beyond the case to which they applied their opinion. That is why their rulings are called OPINIONS. No Judge can use quotes from opinions of Judicial Officials in our Supreme Courthouses, and then claim it is "law", as an excuse to violate the Law of our Constitutions and statutory law that comports with Constitutional Law. However; The Officials trusted with a position in what are regarded as the highest courts on our Land, the Supreme Courts, have an administrative duty that extends beyond the Courthouse they have been trusted to operate. This is a police and regulatory function. They have a duty to regulated the practices of Judicial Officials trusted to operate in our courthouses referred to as 'inferior courts'. Thus, the well-established precedents set by 'superior courts' (Supreme), are considered as 'binding' UNLESS there is a challenge to the precedent as a violation of our Law found in our Constitutions, and Statutory Law made in pursuance thereof.

MYTH: The STATE is the sovereign. The STATE has sovereign immunity from suit or liability.

TRUTH: The purpose for the establishment of a Constitution is to DEPRIVE the State of claiming it is the sovereign, or that it has sovereign immunity. WE THE PEOPLE of the United States of America are the sovereign. We rule over our US Government through our Constitution. The people of Texas are the sovereign of the State of Texas. The people of Texas deprived our State of immunity from suit from the citizen, and liability to the citizen, by and through our Texas Constitution. Louis the XIV famously said, before the King as sovereign was abolished by the French Revolution, "I am the State". The people of France, and the People of the United States, and the People of Texas, all answer; THE PEOPLE are the State. The STATE, and its actors, are SERVANTS of the people (the public), bound by LAW. The STATE does NOT rule, WE rule the STATE.

The people of a land, are  the SOVEREIGN. This is the very essence of DEMOCRACY. A "Republican Form of Government" is for the purpose of maintaining the people as the sovereign, to preserve, protect, and defend the inherent, inalienable, Right of the Citizen, from the STATE and from those who may act as the STATE on a Jury. The republican "form" (a "Republic") divides the government of the State (THE STATE) into three divisions and mandates that each act as a check on attempts by the other divisions to deprive the people of their position as sovereign over their person, their land, their government.

The ONLY difference between our Republic, and the Republic of Rome that existed from around 500 BC to around the year 0 (when Christ, and the Christian rebellion was born), was the Citizen of Rome had Rights secured by Law. The Non-Citizen did not. Our Republic recognizes the Rights of non-citizens, as well as Citizens. The only difference between a Citizen and non-citizen is privileges. Example: The non-citizen can be deported from our land, the citizen cannot. The Citizen can vote, the non-citizen cannot. But all on our Land have Equal PROTECTION of the Law, from any and from all, regardless of their social-economic status or position of public service.

MYTH: Officials are immune from lawsuit or liability for their actions

This is the most evil myth of all. The myth says, without saying so directly, that those who receive regular compensation from the taxpayers treasury, are ABOVE THE LAW. This is a violation of our organic law and the Right secured by our United State Constitution before the Bill of Rights was added. Article I, in two sections, 9 & 10, as one applies to the STATES and the other to the UNITED STATES, prohibits TITLES OF NOBILITY. No person, regardless of the title applied to their position of employment, is above the law in this land. No person, regardless of how meek and humble their social-economic status, is below the protection of the law.

An Official might have Law protect their personal finances from a judgment, but that is only if their employer - the public entity they are employed in by election, appointment, or hire - assumes the liability for their unlawful acts committed while pretending to be performing a function assigned to their position.

MYTH: Jurisdiction

The 'JURISDICTION MYTH' is the greatest myth of all. WATCH FOR THIS WORD. This is the word that Attorneys and Judges like to pretend no one, not a member of this class of professionals, can understand. They also like to present the myth that jurisdiction is so fluid it cannot be defined. In this way Judicial Officials will grant to their own self unlimited jurisdiction, when they want to exercise jurisdiction, and claim lack of jurisdiction when they want to refuse to perform a duty of the office they have been trusted with and are paid to perform.

TRUTH: A Citizen of the United States ALWAYS has "jurisdiction" to bring a grievance into any Court of our United States. Typically referred to as 'Federal' Courts, the most commonly known is the United States District Court. A Citizen of the State of Texas ALWAYS has "jurisdiction" to bring a grievance into any Court of Texas. The Judicial Officials serving in these Court have a duty to hear the grievance, allow for an examination of the facts, allow relevant facts to be discovered when they are subject to dispute, and to rule impartially on Motions of the parties so that the Citizen who brought the grievance to their government, by petition in a Court of their government, is given due process of law. SEE FIRST AMENDMENT: The Right of the people to Petition the Government for Redress of a Grievance. See Section 13 of Article 1, Texas Constitution Bill of Rights, known as the OPEN COURTS provision.

But Citizens are often deprived of due process of law by lazy, incompetent, biased, and sometimes clearly treasonous Judicial Officials, who tell the citizen they do not have jurisdiction. But they deprive the Citizen of the Citizens jurisdiction (lawful authority) to bring a lawsuit (grievance) to their government so that the power of the Law may provide the Citizen with protection - ie; LIBERTY - and with JUSTICE - ie; equal protection of the law, from Judicial Officials as well as from other servants of the public for the benefit of the private citizen.