Attorneys (Lawyers)
Facts, Purpose, Function, and Role
Attorneys, also known as lawyers, are legal professionals trained to advise and represent individuals, businesses, or governments in legal matters. Their primary purpose is to uphold the rule of law by interpreting statutes, precedents, and regulations to protect clients' rights and interests. In the US legal system, attorneys function as advocates in courtrooms, negotiators in settlements, and advisors in compliance or contract matters. They can specialize in areas like criminal defense, civil litigation, corporate law, or family law. Defense attorneys represent accused individuals to ensure fair trials, while others might work as in-house counsel for companies or as public defenders for those who can't afford private representation.
In court, an attorney's role includes gathering evidence, filing motions, cross-examining witnesses, and arguing cases before judges or juries. They must adhere to ethical codes, such as those from the American Bar Association (ABA), which emphasize competence, confidentiality, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
History
The profession traces back to ancient Rome and Greece, where advocates pleaded cases in forums. In the US, it evolved from English common law traditions of barristers (courtroom advocates) and solicitors (advisors). The first American law school was established in 1779 at the College of William & Mary. By the 19th century, bar associations formed to regulate the profession, requiring exams and ethical standards. Today, attorneys must pass a state bar exam after law school (typically a Juris Doctor degree) and maintain continuing education. Modern attorneys come from English common-law tradition. However, English common law influenced U.S. law only historically, not politically today
Secrets and Dark Side
While most attorneys operate ethically, the "dark side" includes instances of corruption, such as bribery, fraud, or manipulating evidence. High-profile cases involve lawyers enabling corporate fraud (e.g., Enron scandals) or engaging in ambulance chasing (aggressive solicitation of clients). Some "secrets" revolve around billable hours pressure, leading to over billing or unnecessary work. Ethical violations can result in disbarment, but critics argue oversight is lax. For example, some attorneys have been implicated in pay-to-play schemes with politicians or judges, undermining public trust.
Attorneys use procedural complexity to disadvantage self-represented people, Prioritize billing over justice and collude informally with prosecutors or judges (ethics violations). These type of behavior are human abuses, not secret cult control.
Judges
Facts, Purpose, Function, and Role
Judges are neutral officials who oversee legal proceedings, ensure fair application of the law, and render decisions in disputes. Their purpose is to interpret laws, constitutions, and evidence impartially, maintaining justice and order. In the US, federal judges are appointed for life by the President (with Senate confirmation) to insulate them from political pressure, while state judges (like in New Jersey) are often appointed or elected for terms. Functions include ruling on admissibility of evidence, instructing juries, sentencing in criminal cases, and issuing opinions that set precedents.
In trials, judges act as referees, balancing prosecution and defense while upholding due process. They also handle non-trial matters like warrants or settlements. Ensure procedural rules are followed and they do not represent parties. The judge purpose it to act as a neutral arbiter, to protect Due process, and Constitutional rights.
The laws that are governing NJ Judges supposed to apply U.S. Constitution, New Jersey Constitution, New Jersey Statutes (N.J.S.A.), Court Rules and binding case law (precedent)
History
Judicial roles date to ancient civilizations, like biblical judges or Roman magistrates. In the US, the system draws from English common law, where judges wore elaborate robes. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal court system. Chief Justice John Marshall (1801–1835) shaped modern judiciary by affirming judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Over time, diversity has increased, with milestones like the first female Supreme Court justice (Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981).
Is the Black Robe Part of a Masonic Tradition or Knights Templar?
Assuming "black rod" means "black robe" (a common typo), no judges' black robes are a secular tradition symbolizing impartiality, dignity, and the gravity of justice, adopted in the US around 1801 by Chief Justice John Marshall for simplicity. They stem from European academic and judicial attire (black for winter in 1635 English rules), not Masonic rituals or Knights Templar symbols. Freemasonry has its own regalia (e.g., aprons), and Knights Templar (a Masonic order) use white tunics with red crosses, unrelated to black judicial robes. Conspiracy theories link judiciary to Masonry, but there's no evidence tying robes specifically.
Secrets and Dark Side
The dark side includes judicial corruption, such as bribery or bias. Historical scandals involve judges accepting gifts or favoring donors, like the 1960s Oklahoma Supreme Court bribery convictions. Modern issues include "kids for cash" schemes where judges received kickbacks for harsh juvenile sentences. "Secrets" might involve undisclosed conflicts of interest or political influences in appointments. Critics point to lifetime tenure enabling unaccountable behavior, though impeachment is rare (only 15 federal judges impeached in history).
Prosecutors
Facts, Purpose, Function, and Role
Prosecutors are government attorneys who represent the state or federal government in criminal cases. Their purpose is to seek justice by charging and proving crimes, not just convictions, per ABA standards, they must disclose exculpatory evidence. Functions include reviewing police reports, deciding charges, negotiating pleas, and presenting cases in court. US Attorneys (federal) are appointed by the President, while state prosecutors (like district attorneys) are often elected.
In the system, they work with law enforcement but must prioritize fairness, dropping weak cases or recommending leniency when appropriate.
History
Prosecution evolved from English crown attorneys. In the US, the role formalized with the Judiciary Act of 1789, creating US Attorneys. The 20th century saw expansions like the Department of Justice (1870) to handle federal cases. Key developments include the rise of elected prosecutors in the 1800s, emphasizing accountability to voters.
Secrets and Dark Side
Prosecutorial misconduct is a major issue, including withholding evidence (Brady violations), overcharging to coerce pleas, or racial bias in charging. Scandals like the Duke lacrosse case (false accusations) highlight abuses. "Secrets" involve political motivations, such as targeting opponents. Corruption examples include Trump-era interference in investigations or historical bribery in local offices. Critics argue qualified immunity shields prosecutors from accountability, leading to wrongful convictions (over 3,000 exonerations since 1989, many due to misconduct).
Purpose of the Judge's Black Robe
The black robe symbolizes authority, impartiality, and the solemnity of justice. It fosters uniformity among judges, emphasizing that decisions come from the law, not the individual. Practically, it distinguishes the judge from others in court and promotes decorum. Historically, Chief Justice John Marshall introduced plain black robes in 1801 for republican simplicity, contrasting with elaborate English judicial attire (scarlet or ermine robes). It's not mandatory by law but a tradition in US courts.
Is the black robe a cult from the Vatican? No, this is a fringe conspiracy theory without historical evidence. Robes originated in medieval Europe (influenced by academic and clerical garb), but US adoption was secular and anti-monarchical. Vatican connections are baseless; the "Black Pope" refers to the Jesuit Superior General, a nickname from their black cassocks, but unrelated to judicial robes. Conspiracies linking them often stem from anti-Catholic sentiments, alleging secret control, but lack proof.
You can read these article on Why Judges wear black robs.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Why Judges Wear Black Robes
Why do judges wear a black robe?
Juirs Magazine: Why Do Judges Wear Black Robes?
Laws Implemented by New Jersey Attorneys, Judges, and Prosecutors
They implement US federal laws (e.g., Constitution, statutes like the Criminal Code) and New Jersey state laws (e.g., the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, civil statutes). The system is based on English common law traditions but fully independent since 1776. It's not British, English, or Roman/Vatican law—New Jersey's constitution (1947) and statutes are sovereign. Courts follow precedents from the NJ Supreme Court and US Supreme Court. No Vatican influence; that's a myth. For example, family law uses state codes, while federal cases involve US Code Title 18 for crimes.
Is the Queen or the Black Pope Running the United States or the States?
No, this is unfounded conspiracy theory. The US is a sovereign republic governed by its Constitution, with power divided among federal and state branches. The British monarch (now King Charles III, since Queen Elizabeth II's death in 2022) has no authority over the US post-Independence. Theories about the Queen controlling via corporations or secret pacts (e.g., misinterpreting the 1871 Organic Act, which only incorporated Washington, DC) are debunked fringe ideas from sovereign citizen movements.
The "Black Pope" (Jesuit leader) is alleged in anti-Catholic conspiracies to control world affairs through the Vatican, including the US via Opus Dei or Jesuits influencing courts. Examples include claims of Supreme Court infiltration, but these lack evidence and stem from historical prejudices (e.g., 19th-century nativism). No credible proof exists; US governance is transparent via elections and checks/balances.
Additional Information
The US legal system handles over 100 million cases annually across state and federal courts. Bar associations (e.g., ABA) regulate ethics, but only about 1% of complaints lead to discipline. Wrongful convictions affect 4-6% of cases, often due to flawed forensics or eyewitness errors. In New Jersey, the judiciary includes a unique Tax Court for appeals. Globally, US lawyers number over 1.3 million, the highest per capita. Historical fun fact: Abraham Lincoln was a self-taught attorney who handled over 5,000 cases. Modern trends include AI in legal research, reducing routine work but raising ethical questions about bias in algorithms.
Over 30 US states have "integrated" bars, requiring membership for practice, while others are voluntary. Sovereign citizens tactics, like refusing pleas, often lead to harsher outcomes, with the FBI classifying the movement as a domestic threat due to violence risks. Some judges wear colored robes historically (e.g., scarlet for ceremonies), but black is standard for neutrality. The ABA has over 400,000 members and lobbies on issues like judicial independence.
(see Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement)
It is no such thing of Sovereign citizens. It is an oxymoron, you can be a sovereign or citizens. Can find sovereign citizens word together in the Constitution or on the world map.You can not because it is a word that the corporate government word they made up to control the People and bring them to submissive under their regimen and do not follow the true law of the land and that is the US Constitution that the forefather implement for the People against government tyranny. Sovereign Citizen is B.S. and it is not violence against law enforcement or a terrorist threat. It is People are tired of being mistreated, harassed, put fear in to the people to submit so they can take their unalienable rights from them that was inherited to them, it is the people exercising the the US Preamble /States Constitution Preamble and it is the fear of being threaten by police. The Tenth Amendment say The Power to the State of The People.
In New Jersey Constitution in Article I, Section 2, which explicitly declares that "All political power is inherent in the people Not the other way around. Is calling Sovereign people Sovereign citizens is war against the People, who are not public servants. (see New Jersey Bill of Rights)
In Abraham Lincoln famously stated that the American ideal is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people. He did not say by the government for the government.
Some of this information in this research from attorneys who are statutory lawyers who might not know the true history behind their profession. They pass along information from what they were taught in Law School that does not teaches law. As we know some of this information is white wash and hidden from the people who seeks the true. The internet is streamlining, hiding the truth and monetized what you are reading by the people who control the world. If they can keep the People mentally enslave they can continue control the minds of the People, How can someone in bondage can free you? The FBI calling Sovereign Citizen a crime is crazy the National Crime Information does not say a Sovereign Citizen is a crime. If it does, it does not matter because the Constitution override in statutes, rules, regulation, procedures, policies and ordinance.
According to the Constitution a Sovereign Citizens can not be listed as a crime. A criminal act or crime is when a somebody injured another person.The injured party must have an affidavit saying you injured me. The other criminal act the Constitution states if you did something to someone property. The crime is against humanity.
My belief about these so-called Sovereign citizens that the government put it, is not saying they have to follow statutory law. They are asking for evidence that say they have to follow up these filter law by legislator not by the founders who wrote the Constitution to protect the people from tyranny government who try to over throne the People. Every breathing man, woman and child are created by God or the creator and should follow his biblical laws. Not the people who have money to control the world and the people in it with their rules, policy, ordinance, statue, regulations, commercial law masquerading as law that a white man put in place. Yes, the constitution, Mega Carter, Federalist paper, Declaration of Independence, Northwestern Ordinance, Bill of Rights, Article of Confederation all were written by white men who stolen the United States from the true copper color Indigenous Indians. They wrote the law to protect the people rights.
I believe what the constitution says, every have the right to govern their selves. I believe if any statues, rules, codes, regulation, policy, ordinance and procedures are not aligned with the constitution no one should have to follow. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law Of The Land. The Statue-At- Large supposed to be codified with the Constitution.
REAL “SECRETS” OF THE SYSTEM (VERIFIABLE)
Here are truths people don’t talk about, but are real:
-
Courts are administrative systems, not truth-seeking bodies.
-
Procedure often matters more than justice.
-
Self-represented litigants are held to the same rules because courts prioritize efficiency, not fairness.
-
Immunity doctrines protect judges and prosecutors more than citizens.
-
Most cases are resolved by plea or settlement, not trial.
-
The system is adversarial, not moral.
WHAT ACTUALLY HELPS YOU
If your concern is power abuse, the strongest paths are:
-
Jurisdictional defects
-
Due process violations
-
Statutory noncompliance
-
Record-based evidence
-
Appellate review
-
Judicial ethics complaints (carefully drafted)
These win cases. Conspiracies do not.
Final Truth (Plain Language)
The system is not holy, not just, not neutral, but it is:
-
Bureaucratic
-
Rule-driven
-
Power-protective
Its failures come from human incentives and immunity, not secret rulers.
Why Judges Require a Plea Instead of a Demurrer in Common Law
In criminal proceedings, judges require defendants to enter a plea (guilty, not guilty, or no contest/nolo contendere) during arraignment to determine how the case proceeds e.g., to trial or sentencing. This is a standard due process step under modern rules (e.g., Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), not "force" but a procedural necessity to advance the case efficiently. A demurrer (or "demur") is different: it's a pre-trial motion challenging the legal sufficiency of charges, like claiming facts don't constitute a crime. In common law history, demurrers could precede pleas, admitting facts but disputing law. Today, pleas come first, and demurrers (or motions to dismiss) can follow a not guilty plea. Refusing a plea can lead to a not guilty plea entered by the court. No contest avoids admitting guilt civilly but accepts conviction. This shift from pure common law prioritizes efficiency over archaic forms.
(see Demurrer Legal Definition, Overview & Examples)
(see Defense Abuse of the Demurrer Standards)
(see What is a demurrer?)
Outline of the Law of Common Law Pleading
Does Entering a Plea Put Someone into the Court's Jurisdiction? (And the Consent Myth)
No, entering a plea does not create or consent to jurisdiction courts already have it based on law (e.g., territorial, subject matter). The idea that people must "volunteer consent" is a sovereign citizen myth, claiming government authority requires explicit agreement, often misinterpreting admiralty or contract law. Courts consistently reject this, as jurisdiction stems from constitutions and statutes, not individual consent. Pleading is just acknowledging charges, not waiving rights. Federal Pleading Standards in State Court,
Comments
Post a Comment