• Quentin-E: Thornton Attorney in Fact for Secured Party &

ens legis, DEBTOR operates as an activity of common Right separate and apart from
Federal Equity. This matter has been adjudicated.

Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. .."The practice of law (medicine etc.) is not within the
States grace to regulate." The practice of law (medicine etc.) is an occupation of
common right as per Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925). No State in the
Union of the United States of America licenses lawyers, only the State Bar, which issues
a private corporation type of "Union Card"/certificate for payment of dues/fees. (See also
ExParte v. Garland, 4 Wall 333, 370 (1866), which authorizes only the practice of law in
the courts as an officer of the court and a member of the judicial branch of government,
to represent wards of the court such as infants and persons of unsound mind and as a
public defender in criminal cases.) ...Cannot license an occupation of common
right ...Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 817-819

"Occupations of common right ARE not taxable. The practice of medicine and law are
occupations of common right. An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on
occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. ..."Gross income tax
unconstitutional." (See also Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 US 238, 239. ...That an
attorney cannot represent any private citizen nor any business as the State cannot
license the practice of law. ..."That an attorney can only be allowed to practice law
in the courts to represent "wards" of the court such as infants and persons of
unsound mind as per Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 7, Sect. 4.")

The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy,
220 US 107: .."Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of
commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and
upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of
privilege and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is payable, and
it is this privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling, or
handling of goods; See 53 ALR3d 1163 for the validity and construction of statutes or
rules conditioning right to practice law upon residence or citizenship. (Occupations of
natural/common right are NOT a subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)

The definition of an excise tax is found in the supreme Court case of Flint v. Stone Tracy,
220 US 107: .."Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption
of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations
and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the
exercise of privilege and if business is not done in the manner described, no tax is
payable, and it is this privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere
buying, selling, or handling of goods; See 53 ALR3d 1163 for the validity and
construction of statutes or rules conditioning right to practice law upon
residence or citizenship. (Occupations of natural/common right are NOT a
subject of an excise/income tax..84 C.J.S. art. 122)
 • Attorney at law versus Counsellor at law. It is absolutely amazing what has been
uncovered.
• First there were barristers (counsellors-at-law in America) and attorneys-at-law. In some
of the states initially they were kept separate, but then they started using attorneys and
counsellors-at-law together in one person and he would adjust to the particular issue.
They were admitted [licensed] to practice in the courts by the judges or justices of that
particular court, with the judges being public officers in that time frame.
• Attorney at law:
• 1. Represents only - stands in your place or stead in business or legal issues.
• 2. No attorneys allowed in a criminal trial, except to make bail.
• 3. Has Attorney fees - costs money and can use Attorney Lien.
• 4. Officer of the court
• 5. Can not challenge the court without exposure to sanctions such as judge being a public
officer, etc.
• 6. Takes over the case and you are at his mercy on how the case is run.
• 7. He will raise no issue that he deems the judge will be unhappy with usually.
• 8. Co-counsel is the scam they attempt to use to validate the lack of Assistance of
Counsel. You can not counsel your self.
• Counsellor at law:
• 1. Assists only and is to protect and defend his client, can not represent.
• 2. Counsellors at law are used in criminal trials - access to is an absolute part of a Trial by
Jury from the first part of arraignment on.
• a. Can ask questions on your behalf,
• b. Can instruct you what questions to ask
• c. If the client instructs the Counsellor at law to challenge the judge or court, he can do it
without being sanctioned (done correctly of course)
• 4. Officer of the court.
• 5. Does not charge, works on gratuity. Can not sue for Attorney fees.
• 6. Is learned in the law.
• 7. It is a position of Honor to be a Counsellor at Law.
• 8. It is a level above an Attorney at law.
•

Unlicensed Practice of Law

There is a big difference between a Private Attorney and a PUBLIC ATTORNEY. A

Private Attorney operates by and through an assigned Power-of-Attorney instrument
for a specific or general function. A Private Attorney is also known as an Attorney-in-
Fact. The PUBLIC ATTORNEY is an officer of the court in question and represents
the trust created by Statute or the Statutorily Constructed Scheme through the fascist
(i.e. private business controlled) government that has put up a bonding system for
each crime be they malum in se or regulatory infraction. The PUBLIC ATTORNEY
represents the PUBLIC VESSEL created by and through the Social Security grantor
trust agreement commonly known by the U.S. Treasury as the PUBLIC VESSEL
(PV). The PV operates through Equity and within Special Maritime/Admiralty
jurisdiction (law form) and therefore affects the man in his capacity as the Authorized
Representative. Only members of the State BAR Associations are authorized to
represent the PV as the USAG is the Trustee for the PV. This is why members of Rice
and Associates cannot represent the PUBLIC VESSEL. This is why members of Rice
and Associates can represent and assist the man in capacity as the Authorized
Representative (AR) for the PUBLIC VESSEL. However, the secular courts and the
PUBLIC AGENCIES that regulate the PUBLIC VESSELS do not usually separate the
PV from the AR. So how far can a non-Bar member go in representation?

The case of Hale vs. Sawyer, (NY) 47 barb. 116 (1866), illustrates how far that
Private relationship may go. “It is quite clear that it is the spirit and intent of the
constitution, of the statutes, and the practice of the courts, that no person shall practice
as an attorney or counsellor in actions in the courts but such as have been found
qualified, upon examination by the Supreme Court. The application for that purpose
must be based upon citizenship, the age of twenty-one years, and good moral
character. These qualifications, followed by an order of the court for admission, after
the court become satisfied of the possession of sufficient learning and ability, and the
signing of the roll, and subscribing and taking the constitutional oath, constitute the
right, and authorize the practice, by attorneys and counsellors in all the courts of
record of this state. . . .But this case need not even be put upon that ground. If this
case was in a court of record, the signing this notice in the manner as explained by the
affidavits, I think, would have been without objection, and would be no violation of
the letter or spirit of the constitution, the statute, or the rules of practice. A person
may be an attorney in fact, for another, without being an attorney at law; a
distinction well understood as existing in all kinds of business transactions. They
are sometimes distinguished by attorneys in fact, or private attorneys, and attorneys at
law, or public attorneys. The former is one who is authorized by his principle,
either for some particular purpose, or to do a particular act, not of a legal character.
The latter is employed to appear for the parties to actions, or other judicial
proceedings, and are officers of the courts.”

This case (Hale vs. Sawyer) is about a party that signed pleadings on behalf of a
defendant. How close to the line can a private Attorney go? A pleading “signed as
‘M.S., Defendant, W.J.S., His Attorney,’ is valid, though W.J.S. is not an attorney at
law.”

It is truly amazing how many PUBLIC ATTORNEYS do not know the difference
between PUBLIC and Private Attorney status. I have had to personally provide
briefings on this subject and the subject of the U.S. citizen agreement to a number of
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS. Part of the answer to this dilemma can be found in Corbin
on Contracts in Chapter 29.
Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S.W.2d 464,465 (Tex App.—Waco 1981, no writ).
"Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified
pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 93 ... that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact
was established." Therefore, you are presumed that you are a corporation (i.e. a trust)
until you prove otherwise.

Bl. Comm Vol 1, Ch 18, all trusts are corporations and vice versa.

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES,

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, Section 9. Vessel of the United States
defined, ''vessel of the United States'', as used in this title, means a vessel belonging
in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation
created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District,
or possession thereof.