Tree of Liberty Presents

Before the BARS in America

The Laymans Law

A Primer

A Project of Legacy Trust Media, The Swamp Fox News, with AJAX International News and the American Justice League

Thousands and Thousands of Professional Legal Forms Practice Materials and Pleadings covering nearly every aspect of the field of Law Donate At PayPal.Com to Account THE MOST COMPLETE ACC…
CORPUSJURISUNLIMITED.WORDPRESS.COM People’s Digital Law … Corpus Juris Unlimited Thousands and Thousands of Professional Legal Forms Practice Materials 

Lets begin to examine what Law was on Turtle Island before the United States began …

During the  First Years of the United States and Before …..  BAR EXAMS  and  Law Licenses DID NOT  Exist when the US Constitution was Created.

Saratoga New York 1878

Earlier in 1865 THE CANCER BEGINS

[PDF]The Founding of the American Bar Association – Yale Law … › cgi › viewcontent

by SE Baldwin – ‎1917 – ‎Cited by 11 – ‎Related articles founded in 1865, met in 1877, in SaratogaNew York. It had long had a ….. a meeting of leading lawyers at SaratogaN. Y.August 21st 1878, to discuss the …

The American BAR Clubs

Creating the BAR MAFIAS 1930 Yale Law School

See the Failed BAR Club of Boston in 1836

Abolition Riot of 1836 – Wikipedia › wiki › Abolition_Riot_of_1836

The Abolition Riot of 1836 took place in Boston, Massachusetts (U.S.) in the Massachusetts …. Another accused Sewall of disgracing the legal profession and called for his censure by the bar for “instigating a mob of negroes to perpetrate an act …

History of the Harvard Law School and of Early Legal … › books
Charles Warren 
– 1999 – ‎EducationB. 1836; born Boston, died Dorchester, Aug. 9, 1883 ; admitted Suffolk bar, Aug., 1836. INGE, SAMUEL, born North Carolina, 1818, moved to Alabama when …

A House Dividing Against Itself, 1836-1840 › books
William Lloyd Garrison,
‎Louis Ruchames – 1971 – ‎HistoryBoston, June 25, 1800; d. … from Harvard College in 1818, was admitted to the Boston Bar in 1821, and then studied theology at the Harvard Divinity School.

The Supreme Court in United States History › books
Charles Warren –
1922 – ‎Law… Benjamin R. Curtis, at a meeting of the Boston Bar on Taney’s death in 1864. … 1836 ; Boston Courier, Jan. 4, 1836. 1 Richmond Enquirer, March 19, 1836.

1821-1855 – Page 287 – Google Books Result › booksCharles Warren  – 1922 – ‎Law… Benjamin R. Curtis, at a meeting of the Boston Bar on Taney’s death in 1864. … 21, 1836; Boston Courier, Jan. 4, 1836. 1National Gazette, Feb. 2, 1836; on …

Timeline of Boston – Wikipedia › wiki › Timeline_of_Boston

This is a timeline of the history of the city of Boston, US. This is a dynamic list and may never be …. Samuel Turell Armstrong becomes mayor. Abolition Riot of 1836 ….. MuckRock headquartered in Boston. Island Creek Oyster Bar in business.

Fred Rodell, Woe Unto You, Lawyers, 1939 › lrev › rodell › woe_unto_you_lawyers

Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a ….. was constitutional this year which had been unconstitutional only last year, then even …

Woe Unto You Lawyers : Fred Rodell : Free Download … › details › WoeUntoYouLawyers

No lawyer will like this book. It isn’t written for lawyers. It is written for the average man and its purpose is to try to plant in his head, at the least, a seed of skepticism about the whole legal profession, its works and its ways.
In case anyone should be interested, I got my own skepticism early. Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out. At law school I was lucky. Ten of the men under whom I took courses were sufficiently skeptical and common-sensible about the branches of law they were teaching so that, unwittingly of course, they served together to fortify my hunch about the phoniness
of the whole legal process. In a sense, they are the intellectual godfathers of this book. And though all of them would doubtless strenuously disown their godchild, I think I owe it to them to name them. Listed alphabetically, they are:
Thurman Arnold, now Assistant Attorney-General of the United States; Charles E. Clark, now Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; William O’ Douglas, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Felix Frankfurter, now Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;
Leon Green, now Dean of the Northwestern University Law School; Walton Hamilton, Professor of Law at Yale University; Harold Laski, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics; Richard Joyce Smith, now a practicing attorney in New York City; Wesley Sturges, now Director of the Distilled Spirits Institute; and the late Lee Tulin.
By the time I got through law school, I had decided that I never wanted to practice law. I never have. I am not a member of any bar. If anyone should want, not unreasonably, to know what on earth I am doing – or trying to do – teaching law, he may find a hint of the answer toward the end of Chapter IX.
When I was mulling over the notion of writing this book, I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?” That clinched it. 

And so the STUDY begins …. JBW



“The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)

“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, An association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same….

Enjoy Corpus Juris Unlimited

The People’s Digital Law Library

The Murder of Notice Pleading an attempt to Destroy Liberty and Freedom


In other colonies, however, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, the introduction of common law was militantly and successfully resisted while the emergent lawyer had enormous difficulty gaining status and recognition as a professional advocate. The suppression of the legal profession in many of the colonies did not consist essentially in prohibitions against the practice of law-though it was sharply circumscribed by measures that limited fees so severely that few men of the time cared to assume the financial risks of full-time law practice-but in the colonial refusal to recognize that judging, pleading, or the giving of legal advice was the exclusive preserve of a single class of men. Nevertheless, by the time of the Revolution, the common law was fairly well received in the colonies and a distinctive and recognizable body of men called lawyers had arisen.  

The Antebellum Years and the Emergence of Pro Per Representation VS The Lawyers

The Cambridge History of Law in America – Volume 2


Michael Grossberg, ‎Christopher Tomlins – 2008 – ‎Preview – ‎More editionsThis volume covers American law in the nineteenth century and describes the development of modern legal systems.The Cambridge History of Law in America – Volume 3


Michael Grossberg, ‎Christopher Tomlins – 2008 – ‎Preview – ‎More editionsThis volume covers the twentieth century after World War I and makes predictions for the twenty-first century.The Cambridge History of Law in America – Volume 1


Michael Grossberg, ‎Christopher Tomlins – 2008 – ‎Preview – ‎More editionsThis volume covers American law from the earliest settlement and colonization of North America.


See next friend — One acting without formal appointment as guardian for the benefit of an infant or person of unsound mind not judicially declared incompetent, or other person under some disability.   This disability often arises from minority, mental incapacity, or lack of access to counsel.   

 A next friend has full power over the proceedings in the action as if he or she were an ordinary plaintiff, until a guardian or guardian ad litem is appointed in the case; but the next friend is entitled to present evidence only on the same basis as any other witness.  

One use of next friend status was in connection with many suits brought by detainees at Guantanamo Bay before the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Another case arose following the Monkey selfie affair, when the animal rights organization People for Ethical Treatment of Animals sued photographer David Slater, asserting itself as the next friend of a Celebes crested macaque.    When a relative who is next of kin acts as a next friend for a person, that person is sometimes instead described as the natural guardian of the person.  

The  McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a court of law in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia by prompting, taking notes and quietly giving advice.   

They need not be legally trained or have any professional legal qualifications.

The right to a McKenzie friend was established in the 1970 case of McKenzie v McKenzie.[1] Although in many cases a McKenzie friend may be an actual friend, it is often somebody with knowledge of the area and the presumption is heavily in favour of admitting a McKenzie friend into court.[2] He or she may be liable for any misleading advice given to the litigant in person[citation needed] but is not covered by professional indemnity insurance.

A similar, modified principle exists in Singapore. The role is distinct from that of a next friend or of an amicus curiae.

NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with “Unauthorized practice of law.”

The power of the States to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights. NAACP v. Button,371 U.S. 415 (1963); Sperry v. Florida,373 U.S. 379 (1963)  

Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.

Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). “Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who ‘takes on the mantel of sovereign’,”  

“The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) “The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same….  

In the Earliest Days even before the USA Inc.

In The Magic Mirror: Law in American History, Kermit Hall and Pater Karsten write:

The [Plymouth] colony’s first trained lawyer, Thomas Lechford, did little to instill enthusiasm. He was disbarred for trying to influence a jury. Antilawyer sentiment was pervasive elsewhere as well, and the “ancient English prejudice against lawyers secured new strength in America.” The framers of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas in 1669 declared it a “base and vile thing to plead for money or reward.” Connecticut and Virginia during a portion of the seventeenth century prohibited lawyers from practicing. Early lawyers were often laymen helping friends or women serving the legal interests of absent husbands. (Hall 21-22)

Still, despite the opposition to lawyers–perhaps arising from the complex and seemingly arbitrary rules of the early common-law system–the complexity of colonial legal life (each part of the colonies tended to have its own legal rules which more-or-less approximated some part of the very complex English system), and the importance of smoothing out trade, meant that lawyers became increasingly valued. Although there were no law schools, a “rough apprenticeship” process, along with self-teaching, emerged to prepare attorneys.

But unlike in England, according to Hall and Karsten, there was never sufficient legal business to justify splitting the profession into barristers and solicitors. Instead, “American lawyers survived as generalists” (Hall 22).

It was not until after the Revolution that some moves to formalize legal training emerged, but even though Harvard, Yale and Columbia started legal training in the mid-nineteenth century, it wasn’t until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that the law school system as we know it today developed.


Kermit L. Hall, The Magic Mirror: Law in American History, New Kermit …

ment…”; second, by drawing on the common law heritage to enrich con- stitutional meaning and give it an American cast, and third, by creating a. “mechanism to …The magic mirror: law in American history – Kermit Hall, Peter Karsten … › History › United States › General

Weaving together themes from the history of public, private, and constitutional law, The Magic MirrorLaw in American History, Second Edition, recounts the …The Magic Mirror: Law in American History – Kermit L. Hall – Google … › Religion › Christianity › Episcopalian
The Magic Mirror treats law in society, and the legal implications of social change … Hall concludes that over its history American law has been remarkably fluid, …

[PDF]Book Review. The Magic Mirror: Law in American History by Kermit L …
by M Grossberg – ‎1992Hall angles his legal mirror to reflect law in American history, not the history of American law: His subject is the interaction of law and society from the colonial era to the present. … The Magic Mirrorchronicles American law from the seventeenth century to the late twentieth.The Magic Mirror: Law in American History. | Lillian Goldman Law …

The Magic MirrorLaw in American History. This acclaimed narrative history examines how law has influenced American social, political, economic, and cultural events, as well as how those events inevitably influenced the law itself, from the earliest English settlements to 2007.

American Judicial System for Sale: Bribes and Corruption now the Norm

The People’s Grand Jury Powers

The Fifth Amendment provides that federal prosecutions for capital or otherwise infamous crimes must be [350 U.S. 359, 362] instituted by presentments or indictments of grand juries. But neither the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provision prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries must act. The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. There is every reason to believe that our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor. The basic purpose of the English grand jury was to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes. Grand jurors were selected from the body of the people and their work was not hampered by rigid procedural or evidential rules. In fact, grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory. Despite its broad power to institute criminal proceedings the grand jury grew in popular favor with the years. It acquired an independence in England free from control by the Crown or judges. Its adoption in our Constitution as the sole method for preferring charges in serious criminal cases shows the high place it held as an instrument of justice. And in this country as in England of old the grand jury has convened as a body of laymen, free from technical rules, acting in secret, pledged to indict no one because of prejudice and to free no one because of special favor. As late as 1927 an English historian could say that English grand juries were still free to act on their own knowledge if they pleased to do so. 5 And in 1852 Mr. Justice Nelson on circuit could say “No case has been cited, nor have we been able to find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and revising the judgment of the grand jury upon the evidence, for the purpose of [350 U.S. 359, 363] determining whether or not the finding was founded upon sufficient proof . . . .” United States v. Reed, 27 Fed. Cas. 727, 738.


Right of Revolution

Right of Revolution

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.

Right of revolution – Wikipedia

Right of Revolution |…/right-revolution

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. The right of revolution is not a right that is defined and protected by the Constitution but a natural right. It would be absurd for a constitution to authorize revolutionary challenges to its authority. However, it would not have been absurd for the preamble to the Constitution to have acknowledged the right of revolution, as, for example, the preamble to the pennsylvania …

Images of The Right of Revolution

Image result for The Right of Revolution
Image result for The Right of Revolution
Image result for The Right of Revolution
Image result for The Right of Revolution
Image result for The Right of Revolution

See allSee all images

The Right of Revolution | The Liberty Beacon

The Right of Revolution exists outside of government. The Right of Revolution is inextricably linked to our most basic rightthe Right of Self-Preservation. We are endowed with Rights from our Prime Creator. The Bill of Rights and this statement in the Declaration were meant as warnings to the newly created government of the United States.

Is there an American right of revolution? | American …

Carl Becker, the late, eminent Cornell University historian, in his book The Declaration of Independence, argued that the famous second paragraph of the Declaration is “a frank assertion of the…

Right of revolution : definition of Right of revolution … of revolution/en-en

  • Origins
  • Use in History
  • The Right of Revolution as An Individual Or Collective Right
  • Duty Versus Right
  • Preconditions to The Right of Revolution
  • Natural Law Or Positive Law
  • See Also
  • External Links
  • The right of revolution was perhaps first articulated as part of an official state philosophy by the Zhou Dynasty (1122 – 256 BC) of China. To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the Zhou kings promulgated the concept known as the Mandate of Heaven, that Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpre…

See more on

Videos of The Right of Revolution Right Of Revolution As Justified In Natural And Revealed Law – by Chuck B…1.8K viewsFeb 18, 2016YouTubeLibertyFellowshipMT4:10Crepuscle – “Right of Revolution” (OFFICIAL VIDEO)931 viewsSep 8, 2017YouTubeCrepuscleofficial4:50Crepuscle – Right of Revolution (with lyrics)1.1K viewsSep 10, 2016YouTubeEpic Metal Kingdom1:49Right Sector militia: Symptom of Ukraine’s unfinished revolutionJul 21, 2015BBC4:14Anonymous Declares a Right to Revolution (Right to Rebellion)4.5K viewsJan 15, 2015YouTubeAnarchist Resistance Movemen…See more videos of The Right of Revolution

Right of Revolution: Introduction

What others called the right of resistance or the right of revolution is at bottom the natural right of preservation. The supporting case was developed with bold thought and cautious speech by John Locke, whose Second Treatise(no. 2) rightly was regarded by many of the Founders as a fit

The Right of Rebellion…

In political philosophy, the right of rebellion (or right of revolution) is the right or dutyvariously stated throughout historyof the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Join the Conversation


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with
Get started
%d bloggers like this: