(Updated Nov. 27, 2002)
(Updated June 26, 2017)

The Myth of


After the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, the English King was essentially the "Supreme Being" in that country, a situation lasting more than 140 years. But in 1215, King John was haled to the fields of Runnymede and forced to sign The Great Charter by disgruntled barons and knights demanding limits to his power, and one of those demands related to trial by jury.  By the early 1300s, trials, being popular events attended by many, were held in fields, where the parties appeared before a judge to argue their cases. To separate the spectators from the parties, logs were placed around the "well of the court", and those logs were eventually referred to as the "bar". This is the humble origin of this word.

 During this period, a group named the Knights Templars became a powerful and wealthy force in England, and were engaged in the Crusades against the Muslims in the Middle East. Eventually, the Knights built a beautiful round church near London, which they simply named the Temple. Later, the Knights were banished by the king, and about 100 years thereafter, inns used by law students were built near the Temple, and soon the Temple became permanently associated with the law schools in the vicinity. This intriguing history is beyond the scope of this short explanation, and the interested reader may learn more by reading several old books, available at Google Books: 

History of the Inns of Court     History of the Inns of Court      History of the Inns of Court

Inns of Court     The Lincoln Inn     The Gray's Inn

The Middle Temple    The Inner Temple

The word "bar" associated with virtually all associations of lawyers simply refers to the "bar" that was a feature of these courts in the fields in Medieval England. However, there are some gurus who have developed a more sinister "history" in an attempt to deceive the gullible. For example, the following is posted on the Net and appears to be the basis for lots of these false arguments:

British Accredited Registry (BAR)?

During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.

When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.

Another site states:

All Attorneys, Lawyers, Esquires, Counselors, etc were required in 1938 to join the private fraternity called the BAR (British Accredited Regency or British Accredited Registry) for the privilege of practicing in the courts and to be given a License to Practice by the CREATED CORPORATIONS/ FICTIONS retaining them.  They are given a Certificate by the State and a BAR CARD from their PRIVATE FRATERNITY.

Still another site claims:

The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple. The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America.

Here, false "historical facts" are used in an attempt develop an equally false argument, a trick as old as history itself. 

Tricks are common. The wicked witch in “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” persuaded Snow to eat a poisoned apple, clearly demonstrating that one method to trick somebody is to promise something enticing that really is not what is promised. This method of tricking people has been used in the patriot movement by a number of reputed leaders. For example, Dr. Glen Unger, a dentist, sold his dental practice to another deceived dentist and promised that the new dentist would be getting 200,000 bux of unpaid “receivables” from Unger's patients. After receiving the proceeds from the sale of his dental practice, Unger changed his name to “Dr. Sam Kennedy”, an alleged medical doctor, and started a program selling to the gullible UCC arguments and the “1099-OID tax return” program. Lots of people got indicted and convicted for following Unger’s advice and he too was convicted and given a 12 year sentence. Programs like "Dr. Sam Kennedy's" use false arguments like BAR to assist in the grand deception being practiced by the gurus.

An organization as powerful as the alleged British Accredited Registry would surely have offices located somewhere on the face of the Earth, as well as officers and employees working at that office with known phone numbers published on its website. However, there is no website for BAR, it has no phone number for any officer or employee, and it has no mailing address through which it may be contacted. Simply put, there is no such BAR and never has been. Further, this organization was not established by the International Bar Association in the 17th century as this latter organization was only created in 1947, and it is a voluntary, membership organization composed of 80,000 members.  Its offices are located at 4th Floor, 10 St. Bride Street, London, United Kingdom. It does not control any bar association in the United States. 

The American Bar Association "was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states." See also article titled "The Founding of the American Bar Association," by Simeon Baldwin. The original constitution for that organization, as amended, still governs it. Its headquarters are located at American Bar Association, 740 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-1019. It declares that "the ABA is a national, voluntary professional organization. We have no role in administering bar exams or licensing attorneys in the U.S."  It has no legal association with Britain or its Monarch. Only American lawyers and others having related occupations (like law librarians) can join (there is an international section of "associates"). Not every American lawyer is a member, and I am not and I know many others who are not.

  What about this supposed allegiance to the "Crown"? The Massachusetts Bar Association was created in 1911, not 1761. Some years later in 1923, the Alabama State Bar was created by the Alabama legislature, and pursuant to the act creating that organization, Alabama lawyers are required to take, via Alabama Code §34-3-15, the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself as an attorney, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity, as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice and that I will support the Constitution of the state of Alabama and of the United States, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, so help me God.
Nothing in this oath concerns anything British, and instead an Alabama lawyer must have fealty to both Alabama and the United States and their constitutions.  The Alabama State Bar is governed by a Board of Commissioners. See Alabama Code §34-3-40.  See also this history of the Birmingham Bar Association.

    The oath taken by Florida lawyers is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear:

"I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida;

"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law;

"I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge and approval;

"I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

 See also the oath for Mississippi lawyers, and Georgia's Rule 16, Rules for Governing Admission to the Practice of Law. See also this history of the Mississippi Bar

Rule 402, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, provides that lawyers are to take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:

"I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been appointed, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge those duties and will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States;

"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defenses except those I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land; but this obligation shall not prevent me from defending a person charged with crime;

"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me only such means as are consistent with trust and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

"I will respect the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval;

"I will abstain from all offensive personalities, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice;

 "So help me God."

    Oaths taken by attorneys in other States are similar. For example, the statutorily mandated oath in Oklahoma provides:
"Upon being permitted to practice as attorneys and counselors at law, they shall, in open court, take the following oath: You do solemnly swear that you will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; that you will do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court, and if you know of any you will give knowledge thereof to the judges of the court, or some one of them, that it may be reformed; you will not wittingly, willingly or knowingly promote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will act in the office of attorney in this court according to your best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client, so help you God."  5 O.S. § 2 (OSCN 2001).
    The oath Tennessee lawyers take is somewhat shorter. Rule 6, Tennessee Rules of the Supreme Court, requires the following oath for attorneys:
"I * [name] * do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and that I will truly and honestly demean myself in the practice of my profession to the best of my skill and abilities, so help me God."
The oath Texas lawyers take is:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States, and of this State; that I will honestly demean myself in the practice of the law, and will discharge my duties to my clients to the best of my ability. So help me God."
Wyoming Code §33-5-112 provides:
"No person shall be deemed admitted to the bar until he shall have taken an oath to the effect that he will support, obey, and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and honestly and to the best of his ability discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor-at-law."
See also California Business and Professions Code §§6067 and 6068, Indiana Code §33-43-1-1, Idaho Code §3-201, Montana Code §37-61-207, and Virginia Code § 54.1-3903. A compilation of all oaths is posted here. 

Precisely where does one find this supposed allegiance to the "Crown of the City of London"? If anything, attorneys have taken an oath and are "shield bearers" to not only their clients, but also for the U.S. and various State constitutions.

  A lawyer upon admission to a State bar association enters a regulated profession. To become a lawyer, one must today attend college and graduate, and then attend three years of law school. After graduation, the bar exam must be taken and passed. Then a lawyer is sworn and none of these oaths mentions anything British.

    What legal training do these gurus have? Are they under any legal obligation to provide sound legal advice? The absence of any such duty on their part leaves them free to promote whatever wacky ideas they want, dressed in the garb of a legal argument. This is why they promote arguments like the UCC, redemption, three judge courts, "we are Brits," and others noted on this web site. To dissuade you from seeking the advice of a competent lawyer regarding the validity of the arguments of gurus, they have invented this baseless "Bar" contention, which I trace back to Sean Rice. Federal and state law enforcement agencies surely desire to have people in the freedom movement following utterly groundless legal arguments as it makes their job easier.

    These same "Bar" contention gurus also try to make a case based upon the word, "attorn." Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "attorn" as follows: "To turn * * * In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassals or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate."  History of feudal times provides the meaning of this term. After the Norman conquest in 1066, feudalism was completely established in England (this system had its origins in Medieval Europe). The nobility were the friends and court favorites of the monarch and consequently held estates beneath the King, who owned all the land. Possession of the land was similarly held at will by other parties below the nobles. But nobody "owned" (in the modern sense of ownership) the land; it was owned by the King. These "at will" estates allowed an occupant to possess the land so long as duties of "homage and service" to the superior were met.  The most common duties included making payments of rents and crops, providing soldiers for defense and for war, etc. Some of these duties were discharged by new brides: their wedding nights were spent not with their new husbands, but with the landlord ("first night"). But the most important duty was that of allegiance of the tenant to his landlord. These duties were often oppressive, leading to controversies and revolts.

    If a tenant desired to vacate his estate and transfer it to another, the superior landlord had to approve. Obviously if the estate in question was that of a mere villein, the landlord most likely would only want a hard worker in his place. But for larger estates, there were obviously different considerations for landlords. If some duke who was the immediate tenant of the King wanted to leave England to marry and live in France, the King would only approve someone whom he knew was absolutely faithful to him. Thus, changes in estates from one tenant to another were complicated procedures. And a change of the estate of a duke, for example, required those who were his tenants to pay the same "homage and services" to the new landlord. But it seems fair to say that most changes in estates, "attorning," were accomplished by the parties themselves without the assistance of any other person. If another party did assist this procedure in some way, that party was obviously someone who was well connected and politically astute. It did not require, however, somebody like a lawyer.

    But in a sense, "feudalism" itself was "attorned" and the lawyers did it. Over a period of several hundred years, the old common lawyers (educated at the Inns of Court) methodically kept arguing and getting judicial approval for recognition of ownership rights in land. Slowly and surely, the courts began to recognize that tenants had certain rights to the land they possessed and eventually, the tenants became owners. Over time, the Monarchs lost title of the land to the tenants. While at the height of feudalism in England, a king could go anywhere he wanted and could even force villeins to build bridges for him over creeks, eventually the king not only lost title to the land, but it became recognized that a mere villein was "king of his own castle" and the king could not even enter his humble abode. This "alienation of the estate" away from the King to the tenants was the accomplishment of the old common lawyers and judges.

    I wish that the "attorn" advocates would get their story straight. Perhaps they would learn something by watching some movies about feudal England, like "Braveheart." They don't because they fail to read and study (or watch movies); they are prone to just follow rumor and hearsay rather than making the effort to confirm the accuracy of an historical fact or law. This explains why they build and sell arguments based upon statutes that no longer exist. To confirm that which I stated above regarding lawyers "attorning the king,"  may I suggest Bergin & Haskell's Estates in Land and Future Interests, which explains this evolution of estates from ownership of the king to the tenants. Of course, there are other similar works in law libraries, but I doubt that any of these "Bar" advocates can find their way there. But if they did, they would be lost once inside.

     Those who advocate this "BAR" argument are using lies to sell garbage legal arguments like names in CAPS, missing 13th Amendment, redemption, etc. If you buy into their position, expect to be sold some trashy legal argument without substance ("make yourself an alien"). These gurus do not want you to ask a lawyer whether the legal arguments they promote have any validity. Buyer beware.

Return to: Destroyed Arguments