Home Schoolers and Small Business Owners
Weapon: Something that may be used to fight with; a means
by which one contends with another.
Imagine yourself as one of the pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Ahead of you stretches a vast hostile wilderness. You're not even where you're supposed to be (there is some evidence that the captain of the Mayflower was bribed to dump his passengers in Massachusetts instead of Virginia, where they were supposed to be going).
The difference is that this time you have no weapons and no shoes. Even if you can survive the winter by wrapping rags around your feet, the first time a raiding Indian party decides it wants to acquire anything that belongs to you--your property, your wife, or even your life--it's theirs.
Now let's move forward a century or two and imagine yourself on the frontier with 40 acres that you've cleared out of the wilderness. This time you have weapons, a good stock of flintlock rifles and pistols. The problem is, you don't know how to use them. There is no one to teach you how. You could have bought a book on how to load and care for this particular group of weapons. Unfortunately a couple of the couch potato skinflints in your family didn't want to spend the money for
the book nor did they want to take the time to develop the skills necessary to use such weapons efficiently and so talked you out of the purchase. They figured that since they weren't doing anything wrong, none of the raiding Indian tribes or white bandits would bother any of you.
One day you get a message that a raiding party is on its way. They're coming to your house. Not having had the foresight to train and prepare for this day, you are forced to hire mercenaries to fight for you. The problem is that there has been so much raiding and pillaging
going on that mercenaries are at a premium. One of two things may happen.
The first is that the mercenaries, even though you paid them in advance, realize that fighting for you and yours is harder than they thought. They keep the money and make a run for it. Your place is burned to the ground and you and your family are wiped out.
The second is that the mercenaries stand and fight. They might even win. But you had agreed to pay them by the day and it took them more days than you thought it would. Since it took all your money and personal property to pay them and you still owe them more, they take
what is left: your 40 acres. Your homestead is no longer yours and you and your family leave, barefoot and penniless.
The analogy here should be obvious to anyone. The law is the weapon.
That weapon is in the hands of the raiding parties, such as public school bureaucrats and government tax collectors. As those of you who have read, studied and applied Brown's Lawsuit Cookbook, The Erwin Rommel School of Law: How to Defeat an Illegal Legal System, and Son of Erwin Rommel: Taking Our Country Back are well aware, there are no Daniel Boones (sharpshooters) among those bureaucratic raiding parties.
Even so, there is strength in numbers. There are a lot of them.
The mercenaries are the lawyers. Judges are also lawyers.
You know who you are. Let's break down the legal system weapon into three (3) basic systems in order to show you how simple it is.
Any legal action begins with a set of facts, things that have actually happened. Courts do not get involved deciding hypothetical situations. Almost any home-schooled child is probably going to have a better ability to compose a "statement of facts" than a comparable individual victimized by the public school system. A statement of facts must be brief. A lot of pro se litigants don't seem to understand that the average judge doesn't have the time (or the patience) to wade through 300 single-spaced pages when he has 1500 other cases to attend to and several golf dates
The law consists of legislative enactments organized by numbers. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 is a federal obstruction of justice law, also known more commonly as a statute. RSMo § 527.090 stands for Revised Statutes of Missouri section 527.090, a law concerning jury trials for issues normally decided by a judge. Laws ordinarily do not enforce themselves. Anyone who learns how to use the indexing system can study the law that applies to a particular set of facts.
The procedure describes how the law is applied. Such procedure is called the Rules of Civil Procedure in civil cases and/or the Rules of Criminal Procedure in criminal cases. Books with these titles are available from West Publishing Co. in St. Paul, Minnesota. They are the "weapons manuals" for the law that you need to apply. Study the procedure that applies to your case before you step into the 20th century battlefield, the American courtroom. In the middle of a battlefield with bullets whistling around your ears is not the time to learn how to reload and clear your
weapon when it jams.
Let's use another analogy to drive the point home even further.
The facts are a chessboard. Anyone can recognize 64 alternating light and dark squares. The law, or statutes, are the chess pieces. Each piece serves a different function and is called by a different name. The rook, also known as a castle, was once called the judge. Rook also means "to cheat or swindle."
How you move each chess piece can be compared to procedure. You may have more law, or chess pieces, on your side. However, if you are up against someone who knows more of the procedural moves than you do and applies them, he will beat you. Especially if he cheats.
If you are up against a licensed attorney, especially a government attorney, expect it. Plan for it. It's part of their procedure. If you are handling your own case (going "pro se") don't even think about cheating in retaliation. The judge will throw you out of court in a heartbeat when he catches you (judges normally turn a blind eye to attorneys who are lying, cheating, stealing and the like).
Only people with licenses are allowed to commit what those of us in the common heard would consider crimes.
A lawyer's license allows its holder to lie, cheat, and steal.
A doctor's license allows its holder to kill (abortions and doctor-assisted suicides).
Fortunately, there is no license required to fight your own court case, civil or criminal. You just can't represent your own corporation (it's a legal person). Now let us suggest something so staggering in its implications that it may be the key to reversing generations of
the legal anarchy promulgated by the legal profession.
There are approximately one million (1,000,000) children being home schooled in the United States today. Quite often the families involved are dragged into the courts in order to defend their educational programs and way of life. A typical example comes to us from Texas:
All school-age children in Texas are required to attend public schools a minimum number of days each year unless exempted by law. Tex. Educ. Code § 21.032. Among those exempt from this requirement is "any child in attendance upon a private or parochial school which shall include in its course a study of good citizenship". Id. § 21.033(a)(1). The dispute in this class action centers on whether the private school exemption includes children who are taught at home, in a bona fide manner, a curriculum designed to meet certain basic education goals, including a study of good citizenship. The district court construed the exemption to include such children and permanently enjoined all school districts and their attendance officers from enforcing the compulsory attendance law based upon any other reading of § 21.033(a)(1). The district court also awarded attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed.
The relative merits of home schooling and public education are currently the subject of a vigorous and sometimes emotional debate in which the legal issues we address here do not require us to take part. We agree that Texas law does not require children who are taught in legitimate home schools to attend public schools. We therefore affirm the lower courts' construction of § 21.033 (a)(1) and the award of attorney fees. The State has charged a number of parents who educate their children at home with criminal violations of the compulsory attendance law. The district court enjoined all further such prosecutions not based upon a proper construction of the private school exemption. We conclude, however, that a permanent injunction against school districts and their agents is unwarranted, as there is no showing that school officials will refuse to abide by our decision in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the injunctive portion of the lower courts' judgments.
Texas Education Agency v. Leeper, No. D-2022, Supreme Court of Texas, 6/15/94.
Notice that this was (a) a class action in which (b) the injunction of the lower court was reversed. In other words, the raiding party is free to strike again.
Ms. Rust received sole legal custody of the parties' children. Nothing in the marital dissolution agreement or the divorce decree reserved Mr. Rust the right to veto, or even be involved in, Ms. Rust's decisions involving their children's education. Thus, Mr. Rust, as the moving party, had the burden of presenting sufficient proof to warrant the trial court's intervention into Ms. Rust's prerogatives as the custodial parent.
Home schooling is a permissible educational alternative in Tennessee. Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3050 (1990) permits parents to educate their children at home and provides that home schooling is an exception to the mandatory school attendance laws as long as the educational program meets the requirements of state law.
Home schooling is not inherently inimical to a child's health or welfare and does not necessarily impose a substantial social burden on a child.
Accordingly, Mr. Rust cannot prevail solely because Ms. Rust is considering home schooling as an educational alternative for their children.
Rust v. Rust, 864 S.W. 2d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Note that the plaintiff in both cases hired mercenaries.
Now let's consider another scenario. Let's postulate that the ex-Mrs. Rust had been home-schooling her children in facts, law and procedure. As every good teacher knows, the teacher normally learns more than the students. Her ex-husband (or the school board or whoever) then attacks her in the courts. She then indexes and researches the applicable law. She and her children have already studied the weapons manual, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, as a "home-schooling" exercise. Her opponent, paying a mercenary, is now in the position of paying an attorney
$150.00 an hour while she simply uses the case as an academic exercise to teach her children how to use the weapon of the law to defend themselves.
The fact is, you can teach law to a 10-year-old. It's the most overrated of all the disciplines taught in colleges and universities. If you can teach your 10-year-old to locate books in a public library, you can teach him (or her) to locate books in a law library. We assume that you have already taught him (or her) how to read.
In a short period of time every bureaucratic raiding party and obnoxious ex-husband would realize they were picking a quarrel with Annie Oakley and her children. Such behavior would prevent the "law of predators" from continuing or the tendency of the strong carnivore to pick on the
weak herbivore. A lion attacking a zebra stallion can get its jaw broken by a swift backwards kick. The old and infirm and the young are easier and more attractive prey.
Now let's take this scenario one step further. Instead of just Ms. Rust and her children, let's expand this program to 10% of the homeschooled children in America, or 100,000 of them. We'd like to expand it to all one million of them (and their parents) but we have to be realistic.
Most Americans don't prepare for anything, they simply react. Consider a deer (or defendant) caught in the headlights of an oncoming automobile (or lawsuit) and you get the idea.
By the time those 100,000 children were 18 years old they would all be the legal equivalent of Sgt. York of World War I fame.
They would understand how grand juries are supposed to work.
They would understand how trial juries are supposed to work.
As a member of either jury panel, they would dominate the proceedings.
They would be able to handle all their own legal work and never have to pay a lawyer for anything. In short, it would be a way of ending the corrupt legal system we now have.
One final example.
In May of 1995 Mike Brown's 16-year-old daughter was told she couldn't come back to the public school where she was enrolled unless she had immunization shots. Mike Brown then called the principal of this particular high school and was informed that a nurse in another county had issued a directive to that effect.
Mike then pointed out that:
1. A nurse is not a medical doctor. She can't prescribe medication or inoculations for anyone, let alone children she has never even met.
2. A nurse in one county cannot tell people in another county what to do.
3. The school was violating Mike Brown's religious beliefs.
4. An unwanted medication is a battery.
His reasoning and logic fell on deaf ears. He then sighed and said, "You're telling me this is going to have to go to federal court?"
"Are we talking lawsuit here?" was the response.
"You're leaving me no choice," Mike said.
"No, wait, you just give us your assurance that you'll be responsible for whatever disease she catches and we'll let her back into school," was the instant reply.
"Done. I'll even put it in writing."
The entire conversation took less than three (3) minutes.
Translated into a crude analogy, the potential raiding party was brought face to face with the realization that the teenage girl and helpless (unarmed) household it thought it was facing was in fact a houseful of armed, capable combat veterans.
The best cases never go to court. Predators don't normally pick fights when they know that, even if they win, they have a really good chance of getting badly hurt.
You can do the same.
Other items to help you be prepared:
Alternative Energy for the 21st Century
This page was updated on May 23, 2005