The Paradox of Legality: Unmasking the Illegitimacy of Our Judiciary Systems
Sacred Texts and the pre ordained — prediction of our contemporay — corruption seen in the following ways: In the context of legal proceedings and the judiciary (Jurisprudence or :.) ֲה ָל ָכה( “Halakha”. “The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, ‘Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us.’” — Micah 3:11
Introduction:
In a world where the pursuit of justice is considered a cornerstone of a fair and equitable society, the judiciary system often stands as the gatekeeper of these ideals. Yet, the reality appears far more troubling. Our judiciary systems are increasingly mired in corruption, complexity, and self-preservation, leaving many to question their legitimacy. With the BAR Association playing a central role in shaping this system, concerns about transparency, accountability, and even potential ties to foreign powers have emerged. This exploration seeks to uncover the paradox of legality within our current systems and examine whether they truly serve the people or function as instruments of inequality and control.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, you may sue state or local officials for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal laws].” Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), you may sue federal officials for the violation of certain constitutional rights. State or local officials (a § 1983 claim)
Prohibiting members of the legislative branch from also holding membership in the B.A.R. (aka: British Attornment Registrar) helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that lawmakers can focus fully on their responsibilities without divided loyalties. This approach fosters greater transparency and accountability, paving the way for more effective governance.
The origins of modern bar associations in the United States date back to the 1870s. Notably, in 1872, just one year after the passage of civil rights legislation, the Supreme Court drastically shifted its stance on judicial accountability. It overturned its earlier position and declared that judges would not be liable for malicious or corrupt acts. This expansion of judicial immunity marked a sharp departure from the common law that most states adhered to during the Civil War era.
By 1871, only 13 states had granted judges broad judicial immunity, while six states held judges fully accountable for malicious acts performed in excess of their jurisdiction. Eighteen other states had not addressed the issue directly but recognized English common law as binding precedent. Nevertheless, between 1869 and 1872, the Supreme Court established an expansive form of immunity for state-court judges that went far beyond what the majority of states would have accepted under their own laws at the time.
The current judiciary systems are so deeply entrenched in corruption and complexity that it feels overwhelming to grasp the full extent of the problem. How can someone expect a fair hearing, especially when they lack trust in a system that seems self-serving and self-protective? In a country that claims to be a Constitutional Republic, how can a private system exist that purports to serve the people, yet enforces illegitimate policing policies and allows the same group in charge to oversee complaints against itself? This creates an inherently biased structure where accountability is severely lacking. The scope of these issues is so vast that participation in such a flawed system often feels futile at every level.
“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for § 1983 claims against them in their individual capacities insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Muslow v. City of Shreveport, 491 F. Supp. 3d 172 (W.D. La. 2020). 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: is a Latin phrase that translates to “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.” In legal terms, it means that if a law or rule specifically mentions one thing, it implies that anything not mentioned is excluded.
“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and in such cases, a negative or exclusive sense must be applied to them; otherwise, they hold no effect at all.” This principle underscores the necessity of interpreting affirmative provisions as inherently exclusive, ensuring they retain their intended meaning and function. As stated in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”
The case further established the primacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, emphasizing the duty of courts to prioritize it over conflicting legislative acts. As Chief Justice Marshall explained:
”So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”
Moreover, Marshall articulated the fundamental principle of judicial review, stating:
”If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 178 (1803)).This enduring doctrine, later elaborated upon by Clifton Williams in Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, 15 Marq. L. Rev. 191 (1931), reinforces the principle that explicit constitutional provisions cannot be ignored or rendered ineffective by legislative acts or judicial interpretations that fail to honor their paramount authority.
The BAR association requires its members to join and maintain good standing to practice, yet there is no transparent public or citizen-accessible monitoring system to evaluate their performance. Unlike statistics in sports, which offer clear and measurable insights, there is no equivalent for tracking the abilities and case records of these professionals, leaving people without a clear understanding of their competence or integrity. Instead of ensuring accountability and client protection, the rules seem designed to shield members within the system. This raises the critical question: what can be done to ensure that the system prioritizes the rights and interests of clients over the self-preservation of its members?
“The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. “ Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
There are additional concerns, such as BAR members being granted titles like “Esquire.” Historically, the title “Esquire” signified an oath of allegiance to a monarch, such as the King or Queen of England. This practice poses a significant issue within the United States, as it conflicts with the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits titles of nobility without proper congressional approval.
To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:
- the court must have jurisdiction ALL of the parties;
- the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
- the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.
If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. A void judgment may be cured by Mandamus. Res judicata does not apply to such a judgment. A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. ”
“[I]mmunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017). “A judicial officer generally enjoys exemption from civil liability for abuse of process if the jurisdiction of the officer is complete and attaches to both the person and the subject matter in connection with which alleged illegal acts are committed, and the officer acts within the scope of his or her jurisdiction and in a judicial capacity. But judicial officers may be held liable for abuse of process where the officer is wholly without jurisdiction and commits the abuse while acting under the pretense of his or her official capacity. A Judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.” “And this appears to be the point at which the 5th Amendment grand jury, as per the Williams 1992 and referenced cases, holds the authority to act — a buffer between the people and the government. It represents the genuine consent of the governed, tracing back to times even preceding the Magna Carta.” Bender vs. Williamsport,
In Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the doctrine of standing for anyone wishing to challenge perceived violations of the First Amendment.
The relevant provision, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, states:
”No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
This prohibition reflects the nation’s rejection of aristocracy and its commitment to a republican form of government. It aligns with other constitutional provisions, such as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which reject systems that establish distinctions between classes of citizens. The federal prohibition on titles of nobility traces its origins to the Articles of Confederation and Revolutionary-era state constitutions, which also opposed hereditary privilege.
Section 1983 covers a wide range of constitutional rights, including:
The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment)
The right to due process of law (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
The right to freedom of speech and expression (First Amendment)
The right to freedom of religion (First Amendment)
The right to freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, or religion (Fourteenth Amendment)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Can Be Challenged At Any Time And It Is Not Subject To The Thirty-Day Time Limit Required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c): “‘If,’ said Chief Justice Marshall, ‘both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution, or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.’ And the chief justice added that the doctrine ‘that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law,’ ‘would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.’” Pollock v Farmers’ Loan Trust Co. 157 US 429
James Madison, in Federalist №44, noted that this prohibition was derived from the Articles of Confederation and required no further explanation. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist №84, emphasized its critical importance, describing it as the cornerstone of republican government. He argued that as long as titles of nobility are excluded, there is no risk of the government becoming anything other than a government of the people.
Despite its importance, the Title of Nobility Clause has been rarely interpreted by courts. The Supreme Court has only mentioned it in passing, typically in rhetorical contexts within concurring or dissenting opinions. Nonetheless, the prohibition stands as a fundamental safeguard against conflicts of interest and the erosion of republican principles.
“Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted unconstitutional in entering judgment,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E. 2d 1383 (III App. 5 Dist. 1983). [Emphasis added].
Does the BAR Association truly uphold its stated purpose, or could it, through the titles of nobility granted to practicing and retired judges and attorneys, be part of a larger conspiracy hidden in plain sight, deliberately obscured from the lower classes? Some speculate that the BAR might actually stand for the British Attornment Registrar, hinting at potential connections to foreign systems of authority and control.
With the rampant corruption, self-serving actions of an elite class, and the consistent deprivation of justice for ordinary people, one might question whether the BAR Association is serving the interests of “We the People” at all. Instead, it appears to function as a mechanism that perpetuates inequality and shields its members from accountability, prioritizing the preservation of its own power over the delivery of justice.
Moreover, getting Biblical both the Torah and the KJV version Holy of the Bible depict and predict that these — times would come when the Judges themselves would be devoid of the Laws of God, as the rabbis taught.: When our teachers went into the vineyard at Jamnia, they said that the Law would be forgotten by Israel, as it is written [Amos viii. 11]: “Behold, days are coming, saith the Lord Eternal, when I will send a famine in the land, not a famine for bread, nor a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the Lord”; and [ibid. 12]: “And they will wander about from sea to sea, and from the north even to the cast, they will roam about to seek the word of the Lord; but they shall not find it.” By the word of the Lord is meant: Halakha, the end of exile (i.e., the coming of the Messiah), and also the prophecies. In another Boraitha we have learned: R. Simeon ben Jo’hai said: “May God forbid that the Law be forgotten by Israel. It is written [Deut. xxxi. 21]: ‘For it shall not be forgotten out of the mouth of their seed.’ How then can the previous passage, ‘And they will roam about to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it,’ be verified? It means they shall not find a perfect Halakha (which shall be incontestable), nor a Mishna (which shall be beyond refutation) anywhere on earth.” We have learned in a Boraitha: If thou shouldst live in a generation in which there is much trouble (persecution), go and investigate amongst the judges of Israel; for most of the trouble that happens in this world happens only on account (of the corruption) of the judges, as it is written [Micah iii. 9–11]: “Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob and ye princes of the house of Israel, that abhor justice and make crooked all that is straight. They build up Zion with blood-guiltiness and Jerusalem with wrong; her heads judge for bribes, and her priests teach for reward, and her prophets divine for money, and yet will they lean upon the Lord,” etc. They are all wicked, and yet they all lean upon the One who spoke and the world was created; and therefore the Lord will bring upon them three troubles for the three sins of which they were guilty as mentioned above (judging for bribes, teaching for reward, and divining for money), as it is written [ibid. 12]: “Therefore for your sake shall Zion be ploughed up as a field, and Jerusalem shall p. 313 become ruinous heaps, and the mount of the house, forest-covered high-places”; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will not permit his Shekhina to rest again amongst Israel until the corrupt judges shall be removed and the guardians of the peace shall be abolished from Israel, as it is written [Isaiah i. 25 and 26]: “And I will turn my hand against thee, and purge away as with lye thy dross, and remove all thy tin. And (then) I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning.”
“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” — Jeremiah 5:31
Closing:
The judiciary system was envisioned as a protector of justice and a champion of equality under the law. However, the growing perception of corruption, elitism, and constitutional violations challenges its legitimacy. To move forward, we must demand transparency, accountability, and reform from the systems that govern us. By asking the difficult questions and scrutinizing the structures that claim to serve the people, we can begin to uncover the truth and work toward restoring justice in its truest form.
Questions:
1. How can the judiciary system restore public trust when its mechanisms appear inherently self-serving and shielded from accountability?
2. Should the BAR Association implement transparent public monitoring of its members to ensure competence and integrity, and if so, how might this be achieved?
3. Does the use of titles like “Esquire” among BAR members pose a constitutional conflict, and what steps could be taken to address this potential issue?
4. Could the perceived alignment of the BAR Association with foreign systems, as suggested by its alleged ties to the British Attornment Registrar, indicate deeper systemic flaws within our judiciary?
