Suppose a person is given the title of Attorney at law and allowed to act out his/her role as understood by society. Immediately this person would envision him/herself as a defense attorney, a prosecutor, a judge, a politician, etc. This person would presume that, as an expert, he/she would be the authority on Rights and the Constitution. In order to assume this role they would have to be a member of a private corporation called the Bar Association. They would don the blinders of their new discipline and begin their trek in the legal arena. Your actions and defenses would now be predicated upon what the corporate bar association and your esoteric siblings confer as just for your subjects. [Do not forget that "Attorneys at law" are dubbed Esquire, a title of nobility.] You, your bar association and your fellow attorneys imply that as "experts" you are not tempted by human frailties (i.e., self: importance, gain) like other people. You are now a noble person responsible for the survival of freedom and the American way of life. Unfortunately, the trap is now set. Very soon you discover that your livelihood is dependent upon the number of cases processed through the system. Unwitting at first, you now strongly advocate statutes governing the people rather than Law. You reason, "enforcing statutes is much more lucrative than adhering to the law; and, people need to be controlled or there will be chaos." You convince people that statutes are law and secure for yourself economic security and prestige you feel you deserve as a protector of everyone's Rights. You neglect to inform the people that statutes are a product of certain lobby groups efforts to control them, and are based on corporate cases wherein the constitutional Bill of Rights are not, or can not be invoked. [Uniform Commercial Code § 1-103:6, "…statutes should be construed in harmony with the law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law. . . The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action."] If you abrogate the law, are you not an outlaw? Would not this be fraud when people are imprisoned for violating something intended to abrogate the law by the lawyers writing the statutes? Would not the judges and prosecutors be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud? As you can see, We the people, as a body politic, have grown complacent with respect to human nature. Though one could envision a polychotomy of interaction in an experiment of this character, the facts unearth an interesting contraindication. Perhaps the people engaged in these occupations on a daily basis (i.e., lawyers, police, judges, politicians) become blind to the principle of liberty this great Nation stands for. That is to say, if intelligent human beings are aware they are engaged in an experiment, and a subconscious emotion harboring a need to control is unwittingly unleashed by the presumption of a particular role we acknowledge from a title, then there is urgency we re-define the roles. Extrapolating from the aforementioned experiment, when We the People grasp the shield and sword of justice to defend what We perceive as the correct path all mankind should follow, we tend to lose track of the fact that we ourselves are imperfect. The problem is that if our shield is not cast from the template of freedom, our sword wrought by the tools of love, and forged from the embers of truth, then, however noble our crusade, our path is imbued with thistles of prejudice. Crimes of LAW notwithstanding (i.e., murder, rape, theft), We, as a free society, should not enforce upon our fellow human beings our will, but should respect them in their quest for "Life, Liberty and their Pursuit of Happiness."

By: Austin Gary Cooper

Clark Kent Trust