Words. Can you even imagine the state of your life, or our society, if we didn’t have words? Whether spoken or written, we could not have gotten where we are today without words. We use them to describe and define so much of our world, even to sometimes provide a voice to our innermost thoughts and ideas. As humans, we use words to add dimension to our thoughts, to convey our ideas, to communicate with one another, and to further our learning and mutual understanding of so many things. At least, most of us use them for that purpose.

But, there are those among us that have always sought to use our complex language of words in ways intended to provide themselves with some advantage over those less educated in the intricacies of our language and may not fully understand the meaning of the words and phrases used to implement it. These individuals of evil or self-serving intent, a class of people we commonly refer to as “grifters,” devised methods of writing and speaking that was geared toward intentionally deceiving particular individuals, or the masses in general, when weaving and pursuing some scheme to eventually separate the targeted individual or group from their hard-earned money, the majority of which was sure to wind up in the grifter’s pocket.

The most common vernacular for such persons are “con men” or “con artists.” The tradecraft of such individuals is not difficult to understand. They are nothing more than thieves, i.e. common criminals. But, unlike robbers and thugs, they rarely use force or weapons as the preferred tool by which they ply their trade. Instead, they use charm, wit, and words to facilitate thievery upon their intended victim(s) by fraud and deception.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, however, these types of con men haven’t disappeared, nor have they been legally wiped out. Oh no. They still exist today, and in much larger and widespread numbers than ever before, while plying their trade much more openly before the public. This should make it clear to the rest of us that they have simply gotten much better at organizing and operating more comfortably out in the open while becoming much less noticeable as a criminal element than they used to be. In fact, they have actually managed to legitimize themselves and their entire profession by turning their practice of fraud and deception into an actual socially acceptable and highly lucrative form of ‘legitimate’ business.

Who are these modern-day grifters? Well, in today’s world such deceitful and deceptive individuals are more commonly known by a far more prolific and nefarious singular name, attorneys, aka, lawyers. That makes it imperative that you fully understand that there are no bigger, better organized, and more “legal” crime syndicates on the planet than those of the National and State Bar Associations. The members of these associations have an actual license to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of “The State” and its totally corrupted form of “law” and “justice” that truly serves no one but themselves.

What you are going to see in this book is an attempt to explain precisely how this is all designed and setup to carry out the very same plan of fraud and theft that the con men of yesteryear were so well known and notorious for. Only now, those con men are in total control of the very system that was once used to protect the public by hunting them down and prosecuting them for their actions. But, those days are now long gone.  Read on and see for yourself just how true this actually is in modern America.

Dealing with a Condescending Prosecutor or Judge.

Whenever a prosecutor or judge is actually arrogant enough to make the statement “I’m not going to argue the semantics of the law with you,” consider, and remind him or her, that the law itself, including the statute(s) that s/he is trying to use against you, is actually comprised of nothing but legal semantics.

Remember, our American laws are not written in common everyday English, but, rather, they are written in a language known to a particular few as legalese. Legalese itself is not merely constructed of words and sentences, but is a particularized and meticulously crafted language unto itself. It is a language made up entirely of carefully chosen and defined terms and phrases that look and sound exactly like those with which you are normally readily familiar, but, they actually have an altered or alternative legal meaning and context. Which is to say, they are the legal semantics.  These terms and phrases are also known by another name, terms/phrases of art., which we will discuss in more detail momentarily.

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines legalese thusly:

The Collins English Dictionary online provides us with the Webster’s New World College Dictionary’s more expanded, and rather clarifying, definition of the term:

In this definition, you can see where legalese is both known, and intended, to be incomprehensible to the layman, i.e. the non-attorney. Thus, giving the legal profession a monopoly control, use, and understanding of its own language disguised as our common everyday English language, which that system uses to the utter detriment of all those who fail to become adequately fluent in the language themselves. Be warned, this isn’t your simplistic high school French or Spanish class we’re talking about here.

You see, the very explanation of legalese itself is an example of legal semantics in operation. For lack of a better suited and simplified explanation of the issue as to what legalese is, just remember the following; legal semantics is the process of altering the usage and meaning of commonly familiar and ordinary words and sentences by simultaneously converting them into legalese and applying an alternative and undisclosed legal meaning and context to them rather than the common everyday meaning and context even though the terms and phrases you read or hear may look, sound, and are spelled the same way that you are normally familiar with.

In which case, the only proper response to such a statement from ANY attorney would be:

“I know you won’t argue with me about it, because you are legally and linguistically incompetent to do so, and would lose that debate within a matter of minutes if you tried. Therefore, I suggest that you just stand over there quietly and remember why it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool rather than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Terms/Phrases of Art.

So, what exactly is a term/phrase of art, and why is it so important to recognize the difference between such terms and phrases when compared to the common English usage of similar appearing and sounding language?

The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary defines “term of art” this way:

While the online version of West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2, defines the phrase in this way:

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law then goes on to provide us with some clarity as to exactly why this differentiation of language is important to know and fully understand, as it is the precise avenue by which the perversion/corruption of our common language use and understanding  has taken place.

A term of art is a word or phrase that has a specialized meaning in relation within the context of a particular field or profession when used within the law. Terms of art abound in the written law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses more than one risky outcome for the same person based upon the same set of facts and circumstances. However, when used in the context of constitutional protections in law double jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial where they were acquitted (found not guilty) of the alleged crime.

The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art has very real legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.

Upon appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court’s ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with them both. According to the Supreme Court, “punitive damages” is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit. Both the trial court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals were conflating two different terms of art, “compensate” and “punish,” in order to make a finding favorable to the government over the person the government had wronged.

The legal system constantly and subversively construes our every use of language as using the legal terms of art rather than the common and ordinary meaning and usage used by laymen. The primary reason that there is any misunderstanding at all about this fact is because those professionally operating within the system are constantly telling the rest of us that, unless the law creates a specific definition for a given term or phrase, then, they too are always using the same regular English words and sentences in their everyday common and ordinary meaning and context rather than terms and phrases of art having an entirely different legal meaning and context.

However, we know, and can logically prove, that this claim is totally false. We know it is false because, unless there is an actual legal issue, they have no reason to be communicating with us at all. In other words, whenever an attorney or judge makes the statement that they are construing a term or phrase in its common and ordinary meaning and context, they actually mean its common and ordinary meaning and context in relation to law, not common English.

Therefore, whenever they communicate with us, regardless of their purported reason, they are still using legalese terms and phrases, not common English words and sentences. Which, in turn, means they are actually always communicating with us using only the common legal meaning and context as commonly defined by a particular term or phrases legal usage, not its common everyday English usage. The governmental and legal systems simply cannot communicate with us in any other way or language, as the only language and context they know and understand is that of the law itself, i.e. legalese. Which makes the terms and phrases of legalese within the law the only means by which they can communicate and interact with us at all. Pick up and start reading any written communication from any governmental office or agency, or from any law firm, and you are immediately being bombarded with legalese that uses numerous terms and phrases of art even though everything in that communication will appear to be many of the same words and phrases that you have been familiar with and using your whole adult life. However, appearances have never been more deceiving than when they come from government or those in the legal profession.

For those people that want to fight every single court battle as if it were a contractual agreement and obligation involving waiver and mutual consent, this understanding is paramount to achieving any level of actual success in resolving whatever issue(s) they are bringing to your door. Why do I say this is true and necessary? Well, consider this example:

How do you enter into a contractual negotiation with someone else, and how exactly do you define and satisfy the necessary terms of that contract as far as offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds?

How do you know exactly what is being offered and exchanged, and contractually required, if not by the terms of the contract itself?

How do you know what the other party is promising to offer, do, or deliver to you in return for your consideration, and what must that consideration be comprised of, federal reserve notes, gold or silver, or a bushel of potatoes every week for ten years?

Now, what if none of the parties attempting to enter into this contract spoke the same language, and couldn’t communicate in any way so as to directly understand one-another? Before you could move forward with establishing the contract, you would need either an interpreter, or, one or both of you would need to learn the other’s language to the point of fluency, correct?

So, if you are going to argue that the system is trying to ‘contract’ with you during every interaction with its offices or agents, don’t you think it more than just a little beneficial to be able to understand the language of this ‘contract’ so as to comprehend precisely what the offer is, as well as the potential penalty for either party if they fail to fulfill their individual part(s) of the agreement? Wouldn’t that same understanding also be useful in exposing and renegotiating or refusing the unfavorable or unacceptable terms or unconscionability of the agreement as offered?

Personally, I think it would be tantamount, as compulsory contracts are nothing new when it comes to governmental coercion and corruption of the rule of law. But, unless they want to start an outright civil war, they are not quite ready and willing to abandon any and all semblance of complying with certain rules and requirements of certain contractual agreements as they relate to substantive and procedural due process.

Be aware, I am not saying that contractual arguments are the arguments to make in many of these cases that we are forcibly compelled to endure and get through, but, it is a good example of how to think about what is actually happening in relation to lawful and legal process and procedural requirements, as they are also specific contractually obligating terms already agreed upon by the very construct of government and the creation of the laws that contain them. This is what makes a violation of those laws by those within the system a very big deal, even though it may not look or feel like it at the time.

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=legalese.

[2] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010. Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/legalese.

[3] Oxford Living Dictionaries, English  “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/term_of_art.

[4] West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. “Term of Art.” Retrieved February 4 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art.