Rape of Justice - Eustace Mullins

Legal Anarchy

In perusing articles in the nation's press concerning the present practice of law, one can only ask whether the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum. Consider the following; a mother is ordered confined to jail for many months by a judge because she refuses to obey a court order from a judge who demands that she turn over her infant daughter to a divorced father. The mother refuses, because she states that the father has sexually abused the child, a statement reinforced by medical evidence. After twenty-seven months of confinement, she is still in prison, but has never faced a jury or been convicted and sentenced for any offense.

Another mother, in the state of California, is sent to jail because she refuses to turn over her fifteen year old son to her husband, a homosexual, and his lover. A judge in Boston appoints himself the Superintendent of Schools because he disagrees with the manner in which the city's schools are being operated. Another judge, in Yonkers, New York, fines the city one million dollars a day for "racism" because its inhabitants, who have fled in terror from the drug-crazed streets of Manhattan, now refuse to turn their neighborhoods over to the very criminal influences from which they had fled. They had been found guilty of the crime of "white flight," of seeking a more stable area in which to bring up their children. In American courts today, "white flight" is accepted by judges as prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of "racism."

Rather than extremes, these stories are to be garnered from the issues of any metropolitan daily newspaper. However, in more mundane court cases, which do not merit attention by the press, the ruling presence of what can only be described as madness (perhaps the peculiar delusions and madnesses of crowds), provides endless examples of equally horrendous examples of the rape of American justice and its perversion at the hands of the mob. The guillotine is omnipresent in our courts, where our modem Madame Desfarges sit knitting on the front row. Here again, the blade drops, not on the heads of criminals, but on those who have been found guilty of being productive, law-abiding citizens of these United States of America.

Consider the following; a plaintiff sues for damages incurred in an automobile accident, after the person at fault has steadfastly refused to make any payment. The opposing counsel finds an elderly black alcoholic who will support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was responsible for the accident. However, during his deposition, the alcoholic states that he is unable to identify either the plaintiff or his vehicle. Realizing that they have a credibility problem, the defendant's lawyers suddenly have their witness committed to an insane asylum the day before the trial. (He has been an inmate on previous occasions). The plaintiff demands that this witness be produced before the trial can proceed. The judge has no option but to comply. The alcoholic is brought in from the insane asylum under armed guard. His testimony is crucial to the defense, but the jury must now consider its source. Before this farce goes much further, the judge hastily saves the day for the defendant by declaring a mistrial.

At the second trial of this cause, the judge thoughtfully requests the plaintiff to bring his car to the court building, so that the jury can examine it and decide who was at fault. The plaintiff welcomes this opportunity to let the members of the jury look at his car. They file out and solemnly inspect the car, noting that its two right front doors have been smashed in, where the defendant's front bumper struck it three years before. The jury returns to its deliberations, and after eight minutes, files back into the courtroom to deliver their verdict that the plaintiff had backed his car into the front bumper of the defendant, smashing in the two doors on the righthand side! The fact that this feat defies all the laws of physics carries no weight with them. Verdict for the defense.

Developments of this type illustrate the theory of morphic resonance. Morphic resonance is the process by which the past becomes present within morphic fields. is an excellent illustration of the process by which the transmission of causal formative influences becomes evident through space and time. The memory within the morphic fields is cumulative, so that things become increasingly habitual and more acceptable through repetition. This is apparent in much of our legal system, where the most outrageous testimony and judicial decisions are made to seem reasonable and acceptable.

This illustrates the operation of morphic resonance conceived by an evolutionary spirit, becoming impressive nonmaterial fields of influence extending through space and continuing in time. Because they are localized within the systems which they organize, they turn the cosmos into a growing organism. However, the processes of morphic resonance need not be devoted entirely to formulae of insanity or unreason; they can just as easily be influenced by reason and human intelligence, instead of irrationality. This process was in force during the creation of the American Republic, when the finest minds among the American pioneers conceived the Constitution as the vehicle in which to enshrine their reason.

Even among these Founders of the Republic, there was no overweening optimism that what they had created would be immune from later abuse. Samuel Adams may have expressed the concerns of his peers when he wrote in 1789,

"I have always been apprehensive that through the weakness of the human mind often discovered in even in the wisest and best of Men, or the perverseness of the interested, and designing, in as well as out of Government; Misconstructions would be given to the federal constitution, which would disappoint the Views, and expectations of the honest among those who acceded to it, and hazard the Liberty, Independence and Happiness of the People. I was particularly affraid (sic) that unless great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution in the Administration of it would gradually, but swiftly and imperceptibly run into a consolidated Government pervading and legislating through all the States, not for federal purposes only as it professes, but in all cases whatsoever: such a Government would soon annihilate the sovereignty of the several States so necessary to the Support of the confederated Commonwealth, and sink both in despotism."

Adams did not envision the judiciary as the vehicle of this despotism, but his colleague, Thomas Jefferson, who was aware of the perils inherent in a central banking system as well as in a consolidated judiciary, wrote in 1821,

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression.. . . ; that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow.) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. . .. If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true historians."

Modem governments rule by a simple formula, by convincing the masses that they are able to exist by the labor of others. In return for this "free" existence, they agree to "cooperate" in helping the "government" crush anyone who dares to speak out in favor of our traditional liberties. Frederic Bastiat, the French philosopher, pointed this out when he said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else." Note the crucial word "endeavours." The subhumans, that is, the gray men, the mattoids, those who admit they are unqualified to compete in the games of modem life, sink back into the morass from which they emerged, a morass which is variously labelled Communism or other dictatorships. In the United States, the gray men have found a unique defender, the court system.

Although many Americans express concern, but little else, about the growing crime problem, few of us understand that most crimes are committed in our courts. If a criminal commits an illegal act, this constitutes a crime. However, when he is taken to court, our legal system then becomes an integral part of the criminal process. The crime of which the criminal stands accused is nothing to the crimes which are now committed in the name of a "legal system." During the course of an ordinary legal action, whether it be criminal or civil, from three to ten additional crimes are usually committed. These crimes, in most instances, particularly if two attorneys are engaged, one as plaintiff and one as defendant, consist of subornation of perjury, suppression of evidence, intimidation or silencing of witnesses, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and denial of the rights of the injured party.

Because of the crimes committed against them by the legal system, the American people have been for many years engaged in a desperate war, a war to the death. Their mere survival in this war is an amazing and almost unbelievable historical event, because most of us have no inkling that we are in the midst of a great war. We believe that war is a situation where two countries formally engage each other in battle. In fact, during the past five thousand years of recorded history, most wars have been internal, or civil wars. Very few of them are wars fought against an external enemy.

Civil wars obscure the issues at stake, but the result is the same, the survival of the fittest. It is still a war of the fit against the unfit, even though the unfit manage to survive by creating alliances, by keeping the issues in the dark, and by dividing and conquering their historic foes. Although the results of this great civil war may result in a temporary advantage for one side or the other, the issue remains unresolved until one side has succeeded in ending the conflict by totally exterminating the opponent. The unfit are resolved that they will be the victors, and that the fit will disappear from the pages of history. The fit rarely have a clue as to what is at stake, that is, their very survival, and in most cases, they massacre each other at the clever instigation of the unfit.

A further amazing aspect of this impasse is the fact that once the fit do disappear, if indeed they are exterminated, the unfit themselves, unable to exist without their parasitic dependence upon the fit, will also disappear from history. Humanity, as a brief happenstance of history, will be forgotten. This paradox is explained by the ample evidence of the psychological aspects of the unfit — that they are perpetually mired in their self-hatred, and that the goal of their earthly existence is to end in their destruction. If this is their goal, one may well ask, why don't they go ahead and end it? They cannot

do so until they have fulfilled what they see as their historic mission — to exterminate the fit everywhere on earth before they go down to their own long sought self-destruction. This dilemma is rooted in the hatred, misery, greed and envy which characterize the existence of the unfit upon the earth, from which they can never escape, despite any ameliorating effects of improvement or civilization.

Rather than face this stark dilemma, most of the unfit prefer to ignore it, turning their attention to some ephemeral excuse for not facing reality. It is another paradox that the fit, so able to compete and to excel in any field of life, have but one condition which continues to place their very existence in peril, their refusal to face reality. From birth, they are brainwashed to deny their fitness, and to cast about for some area of weakness which will enable them to believe that they really belong with the unfit. It is this brainwashing which enables the unfit to constantly recruit able allies from the fit. Although the educational and religious systems are constantly maintained "in form" to achieve this objective, it is the legal system which remains the final arbiter of the unfit in their war against the fit.

The present writer has appeared in American courts for some forty years, arguing his cause in every court except the Supreme Court of the United States. I have ignored the Supreme Court, because it is geared to handle only the pleadings of special interests. The individual has no chance to appear before this court. It is a waste of time and money for an individual to prepare and submit a brief to the Supreme Court. If he can enlist the support of one of the special interests, who see in his plight some opportunity to advance their own cause, he has a chance, albeit a slim one.

During these forty years of court appearances, a record which exceeds that of most practicing attorneys, this writer has seen elderly judges turn off their hearing aids, and sit dreaming of their mistresses, while apparently following with intense interest the droning protestations of attorneys and their paid witnesses. Many of us would be alarmed, thinking that if the judges are not listening to the testimony, justice is not being served. In fact, this creates no problem. In most litigation, the case has been decided long before the trial actually begins. This charade is necessary in order for the attorneys to collect their enormous fees, and to convince the ignorant litigants that they have indeed had "their day in court."

It is difficult to be critical of the judges for not bothering to listen to days and months of testimony in litigation, because experts believe that up to ninety per cent of all evidence given in American courts is perjury. The judges may have other impairments which interfere with their proper absorption of vast amounts of manufactured and coached testimony. This writer has appeared before judges who were widely known for their "quart a day" habit, a necessary preparation for sitting long hours on the bench. Although most of us might be affected by such daily consumption of the best Southern bourbon, here again, there is no real effect upon the judge's rendering a decision, as this has been decided before he took his first drink of the day, nor is there any question of his impartiality. His verdict usually favors a merchant or a professional man over a complaining customer.

There is also no real abridgment of the citizen's access to justice. He does have access to justice, but it is his misfortune that he is totally in the dark as to what kind of justice is available. He has been brainwashed to believe in the impartiality of the law, the application of Constitutional principles in our courts, and the absolute integrity of our legal system. At no time is he ever advised by his omnipresent "counsel" that the Constitutional "law" in which he retains such a childlike belief, touching in its very innocence, has long since been replaced by the "law merchant" that is, the law of commerce. This will be explained in greater detail in a later chapter, but for the moment, let us suppose that the citizen comes back with "Well, what's wrong with the law of commerce? It is also a vehicle of integrity, is it not? Doesn't it maintain principles of equality and fair play, and honest dealing?"

Certain aspects of the law merchant are acceptable — the merchant asks a price, and the buyer pays it. There is a warranty on the goods, debts should be paid and so on. However, there are disturbing ramifications to the law merchant. First, it is always international, although it may be applied nationally. Second, it recognizes no national boundaries, or any national obligations. The United Nations, a law merchant entity, had made this clear. For instance, under the United Nations Treaty, the crime of treason against an individual cannot be successfully prosecuted. Alger Hiss had to be prosecuted for the crime of perjury, rather than the crime of treason, because he was protected by our acceptance of the United Nations Treaty (which he himself had written!). He was convicted of lying about his thefts of government documents, because he could not be convicted of turning them over to the Communists. Subsequent espionage cases in the United States have been prosecuted by the same subterfuges, with varying results. Many of the convictions have been obtained by relying upon military regulations and their violation. Nevertheless, no American judge is willing to make the pronouncement in open court that we can no longer prosecute the crime of treason, although this is generally acknowledged throughout our judicial structure.

Judges and lawyers are always aware that they are proceeding according to the principles of the law merchant. Litigants are never informed of this crucial fact. Citizens who confidently cite their Constitutional rights in court are amazed to find that the judge becomes furious, and threatens them with severe punishment if Constitutional principles are brought up again. This is our hidden code of justice. It is not a secret code, because it is no secret that our courts function on the principles of the law merchant. However, it is concealed from the citizens, hence it is a hidden code. When the citizen objects that his Constitutional rights are being violated by this foreign procedure, he is curtly informed that "You just don't understand how we do things here."

The law merchant principles guide the outrages committed by agents of the Internal Revenue Service against American citizens. Americans know that they are guaranteed the right of trial by jury, and cite the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution in support of that guarantee. However, the law merchant recognizes no right of trial by jury, nor does it recognize any "rights" of individuals. There are no rights; there are only adherence to the principles of the contract between the parties. The Internal Revenue Service would be violating its own principle, the principle of the law merchant, to allow trial by jury. For this reason, the Tax Court does not allow jury trial. The sitting judge is the only person who can render a decision.

Another vexing aspect of Internal Revenue operations are the continual demands that personal records and papers be produced for their "inspection." They cannot know how much of your property to seize until they have made an inventory of it. This IRS custom was drafted by Lenin in his crucial program "The Threatening Catastrophe," in 1917. He laid down the dictum that "concealing income" would result in the confiscation of assets. Not only did this program ensure his success in setting up a Communist dictatorship in Russia; it also became the guiding principle of our Internal Revenue Service. The actual basis of the IRS operations is the Communist principle that ownership of private property by an individual is a crime. An individual who owns private property or assets of any kind, cash, bonds, etc., not only is committing a crime against the Communist State by owning said property — he commits an even more serious crime by not making a Jesuitical "confession," admitting that he owns said property which he has concealed, and that he thereby loses his rights to it. It is confiscated by the state. In essence, most "judgments" by IRS agents consist of the confiscation of all assets of the accused; not merely the "tax" owed, but all other assets as well, in penalties interest, fees and other "assessments." Thus Nikolai Lenin has established his dictatorship over the citizens of the United States.

American citizens are expressly relieved of any obligation to turn over their personal records to government agents, according to our Constitution. However, the compulsory maintenance of records, and the compulsory producing of them in a controversy, is an essential feature of the law merchant. Without the keeping of adequate records, recording transactions and payments, commercial life would be very difficult. Therefore, the law merchant compels the keeping and production of records, a command which is now mandatory throughout our legal system, not only in tax controversies, but in all litigation, despite the fact that Constitutional law states that said records are the inviolable private property of the individual. However, the law merchant overrides this protection by defining as a "merchant," anyone who engages in any commercial transaction, whether as a buyer or as a seller. Thus every citizen, engaging in commercial transactions on a daily basis, is classified under our present legal system as a "merchant," and thus subject to the precepts of the law merchant.

Once the law merchant had become the dominating factor in our legal system, just after the Civil War, lawyers began to demand the production of personal papers and documents. However, this did not become endemic until after the Second World War, when individual nations which had attempted to establish national boundaries for their commercial law, and had become identified as "fascist" nations because of that precept, had gone down in utter defeat, and the international commands of the law merchant had become the law of all nations. Court orders are routinely issued by judges for the "production of documents," ignoring all Constitutional protection against such orders. These orders also become the instrument for destroying an opponent, because an order to produce documents can run into millions of dollars in costs. Such costs are always ignored by our judges, because "justice must be served" — no matter what the cost to the parties. This meant that litigation, which had once been the trial of issues of fact, that is, the conflicting stories of the opposing litigants, now became a process of "discovery," meaning that a race was on to discover which party would run out of money first, and then go into default.

The present writer has endured many such assaults upon his personal rights. He was stripped of all the earnings from his historic work, the first history of the Federal Reserve System, when a conniving "philanthropist," who had guaranteed him all proceeds from the sales of the book, embezzled all of the income from sales. With no other recourse, this writer was forced to sue him. He was then served with a federal court order by the philanthropist's attorneys, to produce all of his income tax returns, expense disbursements, and other financial data for the previous thirty-five years, although he had been involved with the philanthropist for only two years. Being unable to comply with this federal court order, this writer was then informed he could either go to jail for an indeterminate period, possibly life, since the records could not be produced at any time in the future, or he could sign a quitclaim, which he did. The embezzler kept all of the proceeds from the book, aided and abetted not only by a federal judge, but by the precepts of the law merchant.

Most Americans, being informed of this amazing outcome, would exclaim, "That's impossible! They can't do that!" Of course they can't do that, under Constitutional law. However, such a court order is routine under the law merchant. At the time of this imbroglio, this writer had seen references to the "law merchant," but naively supposed that it referred to the Uniform Commercial Code. I strode into court, prepared to defend my complaint on Constitutional principles. Instead, I was quickly ground down by the wheels of our legal Juggernaut, the law merchant. At no time was I informed that our modem day Benedict Arnolds had turned the court (our West Point fortress of our rights) over to the English foe, or that I was now standing on the property of the Bank of England. However, in future trials, I will be prepared. I will begin by requesting the court to identify each legal procedure used in the trial, as to whether it is authorized by the Constitution, citing the pertinent Article, or whether it is a procedure of the law merchant, again identified by the pertinent code. The judge has but one defense — to cite me for "contempt of court" each time I raise this question. Otherwise, he will have to answer my request.