The History Behind Judges, Attorneys and Prosecutors
He contends the legal fraternity "sanctifies" the Constitution, turning it into a new religion where lawyers act as priests, interpreting it in ways that favor their profession rather than original intent, as seen in cases like the Arizona Supreme Court's Miranda decision.
- Judges create law through their rulings, often deviating from constitutional principles for professional gain.
- The system fosters endless litigation and complexity, benefiting lawyers.
- The book documents real-life examples, drawing from Molloy's extensive career, to illustrate these points.
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.
WHAT LAW IS ACTUALLY APPLIED IN NEW JERSEY COURTS?
The Hierarchy of 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)
Common Law Explained (Truth)
“Common law” means law developed through court decisions it is American common law, not British Crown law
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
REAL “SECRETS” (Not Conspiracies)
Here are truths people are not told, but are factual:
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).
Courts Are Procedural Machines and it prioritize process, not moral justice. If procedure isn’t followed, rights can be lost. In the court system self-represented litigants are disadvantaged. The rules assume legal training and the judges often lack patience (this is real bias), In court the prosecutors have enormous discretion and they can ruin lives without trial via pressure. The judicial immunity Is extremely broad and judges are rarely held accountable for misconduct
THE REAL PROBLEM (Plainly Stated)
The problem is not hidden religious control. They are power imbalance. egos, procedural complexity, institutional self-protection, Lack of accountability, disrespect toward self-represented people. These issues are real, provable, and challengeable.
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. The prosecutor represent the State, not victims, decide whether to charge crimes and they are part of the executive branch. The prosecutor purpose is to enforce criminal statutes, and seek justice, not just convictions (this is the legal standard).
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). They also selective enforcement. These abuses are well documented and real
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. Courts have repeatedly ruled judicial robes are secular symbols.
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?
Black Robe Ceremonies
"Black robe ceremonies" appear to refer to judicial investiture or swearing-in ceremonies where judges formally don their black robes for the first time, symbolizing their entry into the judiciary. This is not a standardized term but is inferred from historical accounts of oath-taking events, such as Chief Justice John Marshall's 1801 swearing-in, where he chose a plain black robe. These ceremonies mark the formal appointment and commitment to uphold justice, often involving oaths, speeches, and the symbolic robing.
Symbol of Black Robe Ceremonies
The primary symbol is the black robe itself, representing impartiality, solemnity, authority, and the rule of law. It signifies that judges are equal in their duty to interpret the law without bias, fostering a sense of uniformity and detachment from personal identity. The color black evokes dignity, neutrality, and the gravity of judicial proceedings, drawing from academic and clerical traditions where robes denote learned authority.
Purpose of Black Robe Ceremonies
The purpose is to publicly affirm a judge's role in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, emphasizing impartiality and the separation from everyday attire to highlight the solemnity of the office. These ceremonies promote uniformity among judges, remind participants of the formality and authority of the judiciary, and serve as a visual commitment to justice over personal or political influences. They also educate the public on judicial independence.
Secrets Behind Black Robe Ceremonies
There are no verified "secrets" in mainstream historical accounts; the tradition is transparent and rooted in practicality. However, fringe conspiracy theories sometimes allege hidden Masonic or elitist influences, claiming robes symbolize secret societies or foreign allegiances, but these lack evidence and stem from anti-establishment narratives. For instance, some claim robes hide "true" affiliations, but this is unsubstantiated speculation. (see The Secrete Life Of A Judge)
Dark Secret of Black Robe Ceremonies
No credible "dark secrets" exist; claims of corruption or occult ties are conspiratorial and often linked to broader myths about the judiciary. One opinion piece suggests political appointments undermine impartiality, portraying robes as a facade for favoritism, but this is critique rather than secret. Historically, robes have been criticized for elitism, but they promote equality in appearance. Just because it is not searchable online, it does not means their is any dark secretes people do not know. I can be some but it can be a dark secrete for some judges to keep hidden. It had been know by that their are some judges have been and currently are members of the Masonic lodge. Membership in a fraternal organization like the Freemasons is not automatically prohibited for a judge, but it is subject to ethical rules in many jurisdictions regarding impartiality and avoiding the appearance of impropriety (read Judicial Conduct), (Famous Mason)
History Behind Black Robe Ceremonies
The tradition originates in medieval Europe, where judges wore colorful robes (e.g., scarlet, violet) influenced by academic and ecclesiastical attire. In England, black robes became standard for winter by 1635. In the US, early justices wore varied robes until Chief Justice John Marshall adopted plain black ones in 1801 for republican simplicity, contrasting British pomp. This spread to state courts, with ceremonies evolving as public rituals to mark appointments.
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. Bond vs United States 529 US 334 2000
(see Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement)
Sovereign Citizen is B.S and a Myth. and it is not violence against law enforcement or a terrorist threat. It is that People are tired of being mistreated, harassed, and placed in fear to submit so their unalienable rights can be taken from them-rights that were inherited. It is the People exercising the the US Preamble and the 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.
The New Jersey Constitution in Article I, Section 2, explicitly declares that "All political power is inherent in the people", not the other way around. Calling sovereign people "sovereign citizens" is war against the People, who are not public servants. (see New Jersey Bill of Rights)
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 based pm what they were taught in law school which does not teaches true law. As we know some of this information is whitewash and hidden from the People who seeks the true. The internet is streamlining, hiding the truth, and monetizing 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. Force the People to comply with Administrative Law Procedures that governs agencies and agencies business license under the Administrative Procedure Act. How can someone in bondage can free you?
The FBI calling "sovereign citizen" a crime is crazy. The National Crime Information Center does not say that being a sovereign citizen is a crime. Even if it did, it would not matter because the Constitution overrides statutes, rules, regulations, procedures, policies, and ordinances.
According to the Constitution, “sovereign citizen” cannot be listed as a crime. A criminal act or crime is when somebody injures another person which is called corpus delicit. The injured party must have an affidavit stating, “You injured me.” Another criminal act stated in the Constitution is when you damage someone’s property. Crime is against humanity.
My belief about these so-called sovereign citizens, as labeled by the government, is not that they are saying they do not have to follow statutory law. They are asking for evidence that says they must follow laws filtered through legislators and not by the Founders who wrote the Constitution to protect the People from tyrannical government trying to overthrow the People.
Every breathing man, woman, and child is created by God or the Creator and should follow His biblical laws, not the people with money who control the world and the People in it with their rules, policies, ordinances, statutes, regulations, and commercial law masquerading as law, systems that white men put in place.
Yes, the constitution, Mega Carter, Federalist paper, Declaration of Independence, Northwestern Ordinance, Bill of Rights, Article of Confederation were all written by white men who stole the United States from the true copper-colored Indigenous Indians. They wrote laws to protect the People’s rights.
I believe what the Constitution affirms: that the People have the inherent right to govern themselves. I further believe that any statutes, rules, codes, regulations, policies, ordinances, or procedures that are not aligned with the Constitution lack lawful authority and should not be binding on the People. The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Statutes at Large are required to be codified in conformity with it. In my Business Law it states that no federal statutes can override the Federal Constitution and no state statutes can override the State Constitution. No federal statutes, state statutes, rules, regulation and state constitution can override the federal 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