By TLB Staff Writer:  David-William


In Maritime Law, or Admiralty Law, which is what the B.A.R. pirates brought upon land, the terms in the definition below have much greater significance.  They do this to people, and that’s a crime of violence and terrorism.  The B.A.R. is not supposed to have anything to do with people, so they coerce people into corporate characters, then they liquidate people as they all create everyone’s demise for their benefit, in the most unlawful manner possible.  All roads lead right back to Rome!



In maritime law. An act committed by the master or mariners of a vessel, for some unlawful or fraudulent purpose, contrary to their duty to the owners, whereby the latter sustain injury. It may include negligence, if so gross as to evidence fraud. Marcardier v. Insurance Co., 8 Cranch, 49, 3 h Ed. 481; Atkinson v. Insurance Co., 05 N. Y. 53S; Atkinson v. Insurance Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.) 10; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Coulter, 3 Pet. 231, 7 L. Ed. 659; Lawton v. Insurance Co., 2 Cush. (Mass.) 501; Earle v. Rowcroft, 8 East, 135. Barratry is some fraudulent act of the master or mariners, tending to their own benefit, to the prejudice of the owner of the vessel, without his privitv or consent. Kendrick v. Delafield, 2 Caines “(N. Y.) 67. Barratry is a generic term, which includes many acts of various kinds and degrees. It comprehends any unlawful, fraudulent, or dishonest act of the master or mariners, and every violation of duty by them arising from gross and culpable negligence contrary to their duty to the owner of the vessel, and which might work loss or injury to him in the course of the voyage insured. A mutiny of the crew, and forcible dispossession by them of the master and other officers from the ship, is a form of barratry. Greene v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 9 Allen (Mass.) 217. In criminal law. Common barratry Is the pmctice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings. Pen. Code Cal.

Law Dictionary: What is BARRATRY? definition of BARRATRY (Black’s Law Dictionary) From:    http://thelawdictionary.org/barratry/


“To put it crudely — and as it refers to the conduct of lawyers — barratry is ambulance chasing, champerty is contingency fees, and maintenance is relatively rare.”


Admiralty: An Overview  “Under Admiralty, the Ship’s Flag determines the source of law” so the Amity Commerce Banner, the Stars and Stripes, out of proportion, laden with Gold Fringe, demonstrates the Jurisdiction of the mock Military Tribunal, the B.A.R. Court pretending to be a court.

Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law (both substantive and procedural) governing navigation and shipping. Topics associated with this field in legal reference works may include: shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.

The courts and Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. American admiralty law formerly applied only to American tidal waters. It now extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. In such waters admiralty jurisdiction includes maritime matters not involving interstate commerce, including recreational boating.

Admiralty law in the United States developed from the British admiralty courts present in most of the American colonies. These courts functioned separately from courts of law and equity. With the Judiciary Act, though, Congress placed admiralty under the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Although admiralty shares much in common with the civil law, it is separate from it. Common law does not act as binding precedent on admiralty courts, but it and other law may be used when no law on point is available.

Parties subject to admiralty may not contract out of admiralty jurisdiction, and states may not infringe on admiralty jurisdiction either judicially or legislatively. Since admiralty courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction (which does not extend to nonmaritime matters), 28 USC § 1333(1), the “Savings to Suitors Clause,” does provide for concurrent state jurisdiction so that non-admiralty remedies will not be foreclosed. Moreover, state courts may have jurisdiction where the matter is primarily local.

Under admiralty, the ship’s flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship’s crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.

Just as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure placed law and equity under the same jurisdiction in 1938, the 1966 rules subsumed admiralty. Nonetheless, the Supplemental Admiralty Rules take precedence over the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event of conflict between the two.


Below are excerpts from a RICO “Complaint” against the B.A.R. for organizing and operating a continuing criminal enterprise, brought forward by a B.A.R. Attorney:

Ed Truncellito, a Texas Lawyer, is bringing a RICO claim for 7.5 BILLION dollars to expose the ORGANIZED CRIME of the Bar Association. Read these excerpts and then forward this to EVERY NEWSGROUP, E-GROUP, and EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!



Plaintiff, CASUALTIES OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE FRAUD (ASSUMED NAME FOR EDWARD TRUNCELLITO), an individual who is a resident of Texas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this class action suit for $7,500,000,000.00 against the State Bar of Texas, for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 USC §1962, for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and extortion.

(Note: Plaintiff is publicizing this action at web site www.no-one-is-married.com.)

SBOT No-Fault Divorce Fraud is a cover-up, like Big Tobacco

7/16/00, Houston Chronicle, p. 17A, “Punitive Damages is memo to industry,” quoting Leighton Finegan, jury foreman of the $145,000,000,000.00 tobacco punitive damages verdict:

a.. “I hope it sends a strong message for all companies in America that they can’t fraudulently represent anything to the public,” he said. “This case was not about choosing to smoke,” Chwast said. “It’s about if you know you’re making a defective product, and these companies knew that.”

Lawyer insider exposes SBOT [State Bar of Texas] No-Fault Divorce Fraud

b.. As an insider to Texas law, Truncellito now blows the whistle on an immense criminal Family Law racket being concealed by the State Bar of Texas, “SBOT.”

c.. Truncellito has discovered, and explains in allegations below-at the peril of fortune and possibly life-that SBOT’s Family Law System was deliberately designed to destroy helpless Texas families for the profit of its own lawyers.

d.. In his 11/24/99 letter, Truncellito informed SBOT that he uncovered massive SBOT corruption causing a family holocaust. An excerpt: “At my own expense I have spent over 1,000 hours researching the law . And my personal investment has not been in vain.

I have uncovered scandalous corruption in Texas family law and in the Texas Family Bar. Texas marriages are being systematically and recklessly destroyed through unlawful adversarial practices of the Texas Family Bar.

But further, in this huge research effort, I have not just uncovered problems. I also have developed reasonable and realistic – though far-reaching – judicial solutions that will substantially remedy those problems at their root.

However, at the same time that marriages are saved, divorces will decline dramatically. Consequently, the revenues of the Family Bar, as the practice exists today, will be dramatically reduced.

The Family Bar lawyers stand to lose a fortune .”

1.. The day after receiving the letter, SBOT, through their agents, Joseph Indelicato and Stephen Statham, began “disability” proceedings to suspend Truncellito’s license to practice law. Mr. Statham explained that Mr. Truncellito’s letter showed “a lot of passion.”

2.. Mr. Truncellito, a teetotaler since 1988, is an honors graduate in computer science who worked eight years as a programmer for the law firm of Baker & Botts. Mr. Truncellito scored in the top one percent on the Law School Admission Test, went to law school at night, at the University of Houston, and graduated in 1995.

3.. On 6/12/00, Mr. Truncellito presented his 220 page “Motion for Rehearing En Banc” to the First Court of Appeals, accusing the First Court’s staff of criminal misconduct in their refusal to interpret the Texas no-fault divorce law (see section below about their “4/20/00 Opinion.”)

1.. The First Court of Appeals denied Mr. Truncellito a fifteen minute hearing on appeal after they knew he invested (by then) fifteen hundred hours in Texas Family Law research.

1.. SBOT Corruption Cover-up Agency-“The Commission” 1.. Only by Divine Providence has Truncellito avoided-thus far-being silenced by the “The Commission” (“Commission for Lawyer Discipline”), SBOT’s secret police, whose rules are designed to conceal SBOT crime and corruption from the public.

2.. “The Commission” (and BODA, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals), is heart of SBOT’s organized crime.

3.. “The Commission” keeps “the profession” from falling into disrepute, much as “The Godfather” keeps “The Family” from falling into disrepute.

4.. SBOT legal corruption is carefully disguised to appear reasonable to untrained eyes, and “The Commission” uses totally secret procedures to silence insider lawyers who have training to recognize the criminal scams when they stumble into them. The Commission even has power to imprison lawyers who reveal that they have been subpoenaed to appear at some of “The Commission’s” secret hearings.

5.. “The Commission” silences whistle-blowers with secret proceedings, using their “disability” rule, which is like a blank check, which reads: “a mental or emotional condition that results in the inability to practice law.”

6.. A license suspension itself results in the “inability to practice law,” and then “The Commission” can name any emotion to fulfill the condition of their rule. The net result: for any or no reason, “The Commission” can suspend a lawyer’s license-and all the lawyer’s earnings.

7.. “The Commission” can have anyone be the initial accuser of “disability.” Then, they appoint their own psychiatrist, prosecutor, witnesses, judge, and jury, to “further consider the issue of ‘disability.'”

8.. Their tribunals have absolute discretion-“The Commission’s” term for absolute power-and absolute secrecy. The Commission knows that absolute tyranny is necessary to enforce absolute silence from whistle-blowers. 1.. All of SBOT is in disorder, but Family Law especially Go To Table of Contents

By the time lawyers graduate from law school and begin to suspect criminal realities in SBOT, they are dependent on their incomes from lawyering, and they cannot afford to make waves.

1.. Some lawyers are in areas of law less prone to the criminal frauds, and their naïveté, and freedom from those schemes, helps protect the image of “the profession.”

2.. Other lawyers either join up with the corruption-or they look the other way and keep silent, because otherwise, dissenters are quickly taught their lesson by “The Commission.”

3.. By the time a lawyer has substantial influence with any breadth, the lawyer knows what must not be inquired into-for wisdom’s sake.

Law schools, by their complex curriculums, assist SBOT’s criminal designs by increasing the cost of entry into “the profession.”

1.. U. of Houston Professor David Crump points out the absurdity of the law school teaching approach, comparing it to learning about baseball by watching a game through a knothole in the fence.

2.. Yet these brilliant doctors of law leave such an antiquated teaching system in place knowing that the barrier to entry helps protect the image-and monopoly-of “the profession.”

1.. 1.. When it comes to disciplining outsiders for “unauthorized practice of law,” any lawyer whatsoever can prosecute a lawsuit against the outsider,” for swift and effective enforcement.

2.. However, for disciplining insiders, for ethical misconduct, the only way a lawyer can be disciplined, is by “The Commission.”

3.. “The Commission’s” disciplinary system requires secrecy unless “The Commission” decides to publish. So any of “The Commission’s” enemies, or lawyers whose misdeeds cannot be concealed, can be exposed for misconduct, while at the same time, criminal rackets can be protected.

2.. The justice system’s present corruption, in Family Law, however, is extraordinary in the scope of its social destructiveness.

3.. Family Law corruption affects the entire population and has destroyed, not only the sacredness of marriage, but the very right to “marry” itself, as marriage has always been known, where spouses must try to stay together peaceably, at least reasonably try to keep their vows, before a divorce can be granted.

4.. Family Law corruption is the focus of this lawsuit. No-Fault Divorce Fraud: Family Hospital deteriorated into a Family Morgue

e.. Letting SBOT’s Divorce Lawyers implement No-Fault divorce laws was like letting morticians implement hospital emergency room procedures. They engineered an assembly line straight to the family morgue.

f.. Divorce Lawyers implemented no-fault divorce only partially with legislation, but then added loopholes primarily within the procedures, ethics, and evidence rules, which are controlled exclusively by SBOT.

1.. The regulatory control for these aspects of the legal machinery is given to the Texas Supreme Court, and nothing gets through to the Supreme Court for consideration unless it passes committees standing guard to protect SBOT self-interests.

2.. No legislation is enforceable except through courts controlled by SBOT-developed rules of procedure, ethics, and evidence. 1.. 1.. 2.. Medicine, in contrast to law, has advanced by great strides, because they have lawyers looking over their shoulders, to compel real accountability with consequences for successes-and failures.

1.. This is one reason why law is so little taught in the grade schools, because the unfairness of legal methods quickly becomes evident even to grade school children; 1.. So by the time young adults become married, they owe fiduciary loyalty to their spouses, but they cannot even pronounce it. g.. Marriage law is an emotionally-charged subject. It is easy for lawyers in legislative committees to play on special interests but for a pretense, and hide self-protection and profit motives.

h.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation channeled money from troubled families to divorce lawyers, now at hourly rates in three digits, in exchange for dividing children and property. Moneys were not directed into reconciliation systems. The court’s officers were hired and paid to terminate marriages, not to save them.

i.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation abolished the fundamental right to true marriage. Fraudulent no-fault took away the legal protection for the once-irrevocable trust established by marriage vows. Instead, SBOT lawyers protect the solemn vows that lawyers make between themselves and an SBOT judge.

j.. The fraudulent no-fault implementation did not train spouses to discover or solve any of the disputes at the heart of marital discord. The fraudulent implementation simply–and grievously–empowered SBOT lawyers to settle all marital disputes for spouses, in one grand sweep, by divorce, no matter how whimsical or trivial the disagreement.

k.. The driving purpose of divorce reform in the 1960’s was women’s equality. But the fraudulent no-fault implementation did not elevate the status of wives as co-equal family managers. It subjected both spouses to overreaching legal domination by SBOT lawyers who became the family managers with the first spouse’s visit and thereafter managed the spouses through their children with custody battles and orders.

l.. More often than not, spouses go to a divorce lawyer, not because they want a divorce but for relief from spouses who are not trained as good husbands and wives. However, pressured by SBOT, in these traumatic personal circumstances, in the unfamiliar legal setting, spouses acquiesce to the lawyers’ lead, and the spouses are unduly influenced to rise up against their own beloved families and children, unknowingly spurred by the ignorance, pride, and greed of unaccountable SBOT lawyers who learn how to inflame even minor irritations into deadly animosities.

But when one-sided, incontestable “divorce on demand,” was opened up by court misinterpretation, suddenly every faithless partner got control of the family, always holding the threat of divorce over the faithful partner’s head. That doubled the divorce rate in about ten years, by about 1980, because beforehand, that other half of the population’s marriages were dominated by the faithful partner-and those marriages weathered the storms.

m.. Fraudulent no-fault divorce implementation was led by Joseph McKnight, who was appointed director of SBOT’s Family Code Project in 1966 and stayed in the role at least until 1974.

n.. McKnight’s 1970 Texas Bar Journal article showed he understood that Texas no-fault divorce was intended for divorces where there was no contest. o.. p.. Then, in 1973, to further the fraud, McKnight perjured himself before the House Committee on the Judiciary, by omission, while representing the State Bar of Texas, in his official capacity as Director of the Family Code Project, 1.. McKnight’s perjury is found on tapes from Hearings on Tex. H.B. 103 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 63rd Legislature, R.S., Meeting 11, (March 13, 1973) (from Cassette Audio Tape 3 available from House Committee Services, Legislative Reference Library, Austin, TX 78711; (512) 463-0920).

1.. Testimony shows Rep. Hale’s alerted suspicion of the McKnight’s major overhaul of the entire multiple-subject Family Code Title I, and he was misled by McKnight about the technical significance of the imbedded divorce evidence requirement in §3.64, and it’s unmentioned connection to the change in §3.52 pleadings, though Hale finally acquiesced to then-SMU Professor McKnight’s assurance about sponsorship by the trustee, SBOT.

2.. McKnight carefully worded a half-truth, intending to mislead-while under oath to tell the whole truth-that there were persons (unnamed divorce-at-will advocates) who thought that §3.64 “full and satisfactory evidence” requirement for divorce was “superfluous” and “it didn’t serve any useful purpose,” failing to mention that the change would render the “no-fault insupportability” statute, which was already ambiguous, into incontestable “divorce at will.”

2.. McKnight, as Director of the Family Code Project was well aware, at the time he testified in 1973, of the pertinent case law which showed the “full and satisfactory evidence” provision and the pleading requirements were the mainstays of Texas government’s protection of marriage. q.. No one in the legislature had any idea that the legal protection of marriage was losing a fundamental attribute, and that the fraud of divorce on demand, already begun, would thereafter be unstoppable to implement. McKnight further covered up, in his 1974 Texas Tech. Law Review article, where he said there was “no defense” to a no-fault divorce, although he knew fully well that Texas no-fault divorce was never meant to be defended, but it was only to be used where there was no contest over the divorce.

1.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.64, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 342 (1974) contains misrepresentations that the burden of proof had not changed, by going from full and satisfactory evidence to ordinary preponderance standard. The article further misleads by complaining of misuse of the evidence standard, an isolated case, while failing to mention its proper use and rationale as had been established for over 100 years by renowned Texas jurists, including Supreme Court Justices.

2.. McKnight, Commentary on Sec. 3.52, 5 Tex.Tech L.Rev. 281, 328 (1974) misleads by assuring everyone that marriages could still be defended by getting facts through discovery, though after 25 years of CLE, discovery is now totally denied at trial, as illustrated in 1999 Amarillo Richards case and now the 2000 Houston First Court Truncellito case, with grounds of divorce ruled irrelevant for discovery, by trial courts, while the courts of appeal uphold these unlawfully-granted divorces. McKnight’s article further misleads by failing to mention the true role of fact pleadings and evidence in strengthening the defenses against contested divorce, defenses which discourage divorce and encourage reconciliations. Removing the right to demand pleadings of fact hindered the ability to defend at trial and on appeal, but McKnight omitted any such comment.

The practicing lawyers deceive marriage partners, and the marriage partners and their children are thereby injured.

1999 No-defense, no Jury: In re Marriage of Richards, 991 S.W.2d 32 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). Richards case absurd but true meaning: “A contested no-fault divorce shall be affirmed on procedural technicalities, through misapplication of the Szczepanik case, where the Collora case applies, even if there is no discovery, even if a properly requested jury is denied, and even if the judge announced the verdict before hearing any evidence, declaring “there is no defense to no fault divorce.”

1.. High Court Fraud: First Court of Appeals 4/20/00 Truncellito case opinion 1.. Having sanctioned the Truncellito appeal as frivolous, $4,500, after the First Court denied 1,500 hours of preparation a 15-minute oral argument, there must have been some ulterior motive. The 4/20/00 opinion cannot be explained by reason of honorable judging.

2.. The 4/20/00 opinion does not address the contentions in Appellant’s brief, repeats the opponents misconstructions, and capriciously disregards the facts and the law of this case. Intent to defraud, to decide the case apart from its merits, is evidenced in that the 4/20/00 opinion:

3.. The 4/20/00 opinion is a fraud to prevent a fair presentation of the case on the merits, and to prevent rendering a considered opinion of the Court on the substantive law and facts of this case.

In this fraudulent 4/20/00 opinion:

1.. The Court knew it was effectively denying the constitutional right to a fair review.

1.. It knew of the hurdles to overcome the Court’s discretion to deny rehearing, which could be exercised as easily as its first denial of a hearing.

2.. It knew of the difficulty of bringing a no-fault divorce challenge to the Supreme Court of Texas for discretionary review.

2.. The Court knew the 4/20/00 opinion’s deceit would be virtually impossible to rebut because its vagueness leaves so many escape routes.

3.. The Court knew that it owed explicit rationales, so a rebuttal does not have to analyze exhaustively all the various legal paths the Court might have traveled to arrive at its conclusion.

The Court knew that, with undisclosed reasoning, any formal, written rebuttal would face yet one more clever misconstruction to evade again, by adding a few more words of legal ambiguity, again to overwhelm and wear down the beneficiary-challenger with the same endless and futile task-of trying to defeat a prejudiced tribunal with a reasoned argument on the merits.

1.. It knew that a dishonorable, but experienced, legal authority can easily place an impossible burden on its petitioners, through an unending variety of evasive ambiguities, with just one more twist on the kaleidoscope of legal fraud.

It knew that petitioners, the beneficiaries of the public’s Judicial Trust, are helpless to defend themselves against prejudiced tribunals; and, The 4/20/00 opinion avoids consideration of no-fault divorce reform that the case earnestly proposed to the Court to end the family holocaust, and as a result, the SBOT agents within the First Court of Appeals attempted to protect SBOT’s criminal racketeering interests and its systematic destruction of families.

It is absurd to suggest that anyone bright enough to ascend to a professional post at an appellate court, even a new briefing attorney, could seat themselves in an ivory tower, face a 1,000 page record and 1,500 hours research, lower a dome of silence, waive issues by overlooking their validity in the record, dispose of the case on the disingenuous presumption of the meaning of a single-word quasi-admission, and meanwhile profess that justice was being served.

r.. A preliminary survey of the Texas Penal Code suggests that the 4/20/00 opinion, with the record of this case, which it distorts, furnishes prima facie evidence to warrant investigation of Tina Snelling, Peter Steinmann, Joseph Indelicato, Stephen Statham, the First Court of Appeals staff and Justices, and other members of SBOT who have become involved, for perpetrating and/or conspiring to perpetrate the following offenses, some classified as felonies:

1.. Ch. 15: Preparatory Offenses.

1.. §15.02 Criminal Conspiracy

2.. Ch. 36: Bribery & Corrupt Influence

1.. §36.02 Bribery

2.. §36.04 Improper Influence

3.. §36.06 Obstruction Or Retaliation

3.. Ch. 37: Perjury & Other falsification

1.. §37.10 Tampering With Governmental Record

Ch. 39: Abuse of Office

1.. §39.02 Abuse Of Official Capacity

2.. §39.03 Official Oppression

1.. Other SBOT abuses of Families 1.. “The Commission” routinely refuses to respond or to investigate complaints, at least from fathers, for two supposed reasons. First, they characterize complaints as unreasonable dissatisfaction with a fair result. Second, there are too many to keep up with.

1.. The Bar refused to return the telephone calls to Rep Holzhouser’s office for over three months with the Rep’s office calling and writing regularly, on this subject.

Because of three-digit hourly rates of the lawyers, granting interim fees during divorce prosecution is marriage quicksand: the harder the Respondent tries to save the marriage, in a contest, the faster they sink.

1.. either the Respondent will be forced to pay the expenses, thereby crushing Respondent’s will to resist, and crippling Respondent’s ability to defend; or,

2.. Petitioner will be required to pay the expenses, further inciting Petitioner to unwarranted hatred against Respondent, framed by the adversarial gamesmanship of Petitioner’s attorney, contrary to ADR law.

3.. Either way, the family is attacked by Petitioner’s attorney who confidently expects enormous personal profit at the family’s expense.

SBOT knows that divorce clients are easy to exploit, and so lawyers instruct the clients to follow the lawyer’s own purposes, but then they claim that the clients are directing them, for example, into adversarial maneuvers. James R. Elkins, “A Counseling Model for Lawyering in Divorce Cases,” 53 Notre Dame Lawyer 229, at P. 237, footnote 39, comments about the well-known phenomenon: ” . One extremely manipulative attorney has explained how the dependent victim in the rescue game is managed by the attorney. . The same often happens in matrimonial cases. Merely by indicating there is going to be rejection, a lawyer can get a client to do anything he wants him to.” R. Felder, Divorce 69 (1971).

s.. SBOT makes money by divorce, because that is what divorce lawyers have been trained to do, via CLE. Therefore, destroy marriages is what they do.

t.. SBOT has adamantly refused to discipline its lawyers, finding every way to cloud the issues, so it can indulge their lawyers rather than re-train them. SBOT even indulges their criminal exploitation of helpless spouses, via cover-ups in “The Commission,” where it should and could place positive controls on divorce lawyers, to prevent them from instigating strife between couples. Thereby, SBOT hinders implementation of ADR and no-fault divorce.

SBOT in this way conspires to restrain trade unreasonably, to restrict competition in marriage reconciliation & restoration market, choosing their methods of family destruction to make money.

u.. SBOT’s system cultivates hatred, to justify destroying victims’ lives, and it perpetuates itself through greed, by allowing the plunder of the victims’ fortunes.

v.. SBOT lawyers cultivate gender hatred against spouses. Then the two lawyers cross-fire that hatred back on the helpless and emotionally confused opposite spouses, who then wrongly blame their spouse for the attack-or they blame the judge-and then the lawyers play golf together on Friday afternoons.

Each state has similar enterprises which are affiliated through the American Bar Association.


Barratry is related to, but clearly different from, champerty and maintenance. Barratry is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1999) as “[t]he offence of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise”. According to Black’s, barratry is also “a crime in most jurisdictions”

By contrast, champerty refers to a bargain between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit by which the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part of any judgment proceeds. The difference between champerty and barratry appears to be that while champerty is purely self-interested, barratry requires the additional intent to harm the third person: “… if the design was not to recover his own right, but only to ruin and oppress his neighbour, that is barratry”. See Words and Phrases Judicially Defined, Vol. I (London: Butterworth & Co., 1943).

Maintenance is further distinguished from barratry and champerty on the basis that it appears to be motivated by altruism. That is, it requires a person to “lay out money on behalf of another in suits at law to recover a just right, and this may be done in respect of the poverty of the party; but if he lends money to promote and stir up suits, then he is a barrator”. Words and Phrases, supra.


They will work together to make sure people get roped into their process.  This is very well explained below by Jerry James Stanton:


Written by Jerry James Stanton 2013

SQUIRE ATTORNEY LARRY BECRAFT. You claim I am a crackpot in recent Yahoo Group e-mails. In my defense, I write what I believe to be true about ATTORNEY’S and where I found it to be evidenced as true.

Did you tell your clients that asked you for your help, how lucky they were if you refused to represent them? [Which is not assistance of counsel] There are enough victims that lost everything they ever had, and or ended up in prison for a victimless crimes because he hired a BAR licensed ATTORNEY, and became a ward of the court, with out their knowledge?   Mr. Larry Becraft if you took them as clients, would you have conveyed these facts to them before they hired you and you took their money? Would they have hired you if they new the truth about you?

Rape, plunder and fraud.

The above are crimes, but American B.A.R ASSOCIATION AND THEIR JUDGES all have committed far worse, but are not imprisoned or punished. One honest ATTORNEY, a Richard Fine, that exposed the crimes of the courts in L.A California, was taken to jail and locked in solitary confinement for over year, with out a lawful complaint, ever being filed. Another one that exposed them was disbarred, a Ed Rivera. Both of their stories can be easily found of the internet.

All members of the State BAR have taken a oath foreign to the U.S Constitution and made themselves above the law, contrary to the original 13 Amendment which has never been repealed:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

Attorney’s in America

Corpus Juris Secundum, Attorney & Client, Sec. 4, pg 802.

Who does your Attorney Really Represent?

1.             Read the 11th Chapter of the Gospel of Luke.

2. Americans appearing in American courts represented by licensed lawyers are known to be “wards-of-the-court”. See, e.g., Corpus Juris Secundum, Attorney & Client, Sec. 2, pg 769.: Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Ed., 1991) defines “wards-of-the-court” as “infants” or “persons of unsound mind”.

You could “look it up”.   Your lawyer didn’t explain this to you when he took your money?  Ever Wonder why?

3. “Their [the attorney’s] first duty is to the court, not to the client, and wherever the duties he owes to the client conflict with the duties he owes to the court, as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter”. Corpus Juris Secundum, Attorney & Client, Sec. 4, pg 802. [Emphasis mine.] Your lawyer didn’t explain this to you either? A clear case of criminal Deception, a fraud to imprison those that never had a lawful complaint against them, brought before a constitutional compliant court or were ever shown due cause or a contract they signed that had full discloser.

4. In the Oxford English Dictionary [ entries in 22 volumes], look up “lawyer” & “liar”. After you learn why those words are connected phonetically in English.

Just read the 5th Amendment which clearly states;
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is not up holding the constitution. This is bad behavior and they cease to be lawful judges. Their orders are void, and all those in prison should be released till time a lawful complaint is brought forth with a notarized signature of a injured party or a contract that was sighed with full discloser.

See: Article III Section 1.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,

These are, acts of fraud and treason upon the sovereign people of these union states when accused of a crime.   Denying all using a BAR licensed attorney, of their constitutional right to lawful counsel, to help the defendant know what his rights are and to help those defend those rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness
Is the soul purpose of legal counsel. Wards of the court have no unalienable rights.
This BAR ATTORNEY scam has lead this nation to have highest percentage of imprisoned people, per population of any country in the world and a great portion of those imprisoned for victimless crimes or their private property stolen without due process.
Blacks Law dictionary defines “private property, in essence, as, “Property protected from appropriation, over which the owner has exclusive and absolute rights.”   Read the entire bill of rights and the definition of the word unalienable right.
Licensed attorneys and Licensed attorney judges, have endless case law and statute law that says, we can not be sovereign free inhabitants in the several states, we have no rights to have I.D without a federal benefit slave card number, known as Social Security Card Number, no right to lawful money, due process of law, free passage on the right a ways, we have to license our rights, license our private property, no right to exchange our labor for compensation to feed and cloth our selves and our families, no right to own private property or a home to shelter our families. These are all privileges, that you have to have to license or are a privileged taxable activities, according to the BAR Attorneys Judges and the corporate STATES BAR ATTORNEYS. Go to Larry Becraft’s web site he has endless case law and reasons you have no rights to any thing. What do believe?
How many were unlawfully imprisoned, for believing these were unalienable rights given to them by their Creator and some sick perverted BAR ATTORNEY, and ATTORNEY JUDGE fraudulently, imprisoned, or stole their private property of the people they swore to protect.
What attorney’s don’t tell you is:

“It is a clearly established principle of law that an attorney must represent a corporation, it being incorporeal and a creature of the law.  An attorney representing an artificial entity must appear with the corporate charter and law in his hand.  A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered to act on the principal’s behalf.  See, Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 USC § 612 et seq.); Victor Rabinowitz et. al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, 376 US 605.

This year alone millions of homes are being foreclosed on by attorneys as third party debt collectors for criminal bankers that have no standing to foreclose, no interest in the home, lent nothing, sold the contract, took the bail out money, collected the mortgage insurance, and now throw the families into the streets and sell their homes and land with help of criminal BAR attorney judges writing void eviction orders without any jurisdiction or authority to do so.   This is simply stealing, plundering and sometimes direct, cause of many families breaking up and owners often committing, suicide.  See; Bank must lend deposits, not credit. | Paul John  www.pauljjhansen.com/?p=313

This year alone the STATE OF MICHIGAN with the help of their Squire BAR attorneys and their, Squire BAR licensed attorney judges will steal the homes and land of thousands families, using deception and fraud, pretending the peoples private property and land is commercial so they, do not have to follow the fifth amendment.   By having the words private property, property and land changed, to real property or real estate using a ad valorem tax all commercial terms which are taxable if their owners are creatures of the CORPORATE STATE and receive a benefit from the STATE for their commercial activity.  These attorney crimes are open treason against the people of these Unites State, using deception to over throw the country and circumvent the constitutional restraints put on government for the protection of its people.

These attorney crimes are as bad as those committed in Germany by the Germans in World War 2, and they deserve the same treatment that international courts gave to the German War criminals.   Because of the above listed facts, I conclude none of these Attorneys should be free to continue their plunder and destruction of these Union States and its people.   These terrorists, need hunted down, stopped and jailed for the felonies they have committed and are committing, and let the courts of America be with its lawful juries that decide the facts and the law as it was intended by our forefathers and unbiased judges that are not part of the private criminal group called the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCATION, which many were considered a communist organization in 1953 by US Congress and I believe they still are. Demand the people keep their unalienable rights to legal counsel, of their choose. It is your country.
The only professions the Lord ever cursed, Lawyers and Moneychangers. They still destroy the people today with their cup of lies, filth, deceit and false money.
Matthew 18:6
[ Causing to Stumble ] “If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
I draw the following conclusion’ the punishment prescribed by the Lord for the above crime should be the minimum punishment given to those that have destroyed the rights and lives of a endless number of entire families for their own personal profit and gain using fraud and deception.
Lord let us all open our eyes and have courage to bring justice back to our nation, judicial system and protect the few in this profession that are honest and try to expose the corruption.
A belligerent claimant of rights. These facts are true to best of my present knowledge.
Retain all rights, Jerry James Stanton


















Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.