Anthony Williams - Private Attorney General

[JamesVincent]

Reminds me of the days when I used to regularly lurk in the OAS forums and one particularly looney member who pasted page upon page of these cases to support his common law BS. One day I decided to look one up that he posted repeatedly as proving SCOTUS has affirmed that common law is the only law and their CLGJs were the only way to restore the country to its former glory. Turns out this particular "SCOTUS" case was actually the WA state supreme court denying a convicted killer one last appeal. I posted my results, which were promptly deleted and I was banned (sigh). I know I have a note about it here somewhere ...

I have several friends who are involved in things like OAS. I also have several friends who are sov'runs or borderline sov'runs. I learned a long time ago when it would help to post something against what they stated and when it wouldn't do a damn thing. I also have a friend who, not only participated in the Million Biker March, was one of the planners for it. I have been asked many a time to join some of these groups and I have declined everytime because, although I agree in principle with a lot of what they want, the way they want to accomplish it is way out there.

[Pottapaug1938]

This Private Attorney General business reminds me of the time that I was sending an e-mail to a lawyer friend about the sovruns who dub themselves an "Attornatus Privatus". We've discussed these in our "Attornatus Privatus" Speaks for His Own "Court of Record" thread.

In the e-mail, I made a typo and referred to this clown as an "Attornanus Privatus". My friend thought that it was an improvement, and accurate besides.

[rogfulton]

I realize that pointing out that there is no special meaning to the word license could be considered as condescending, but that was my intention. If your feelings were hurt, perhaps you could give your definition of the word as it is used in that context, so we could all be on the same page. Many others have been asked before about providing a definition for a word, maybe we should have been asking the same of you.

No hard feelings, it just came off as more of a shot a me than discussion pertaining to the topic at hand. You're absolutely entitled to make comment you desire. Thanks for your time and opinion.

BTW, scare quotes have their place, but not in nearly every sentence.

One could argue that I only submitted one (run-on) sentence containing scare quotes. Of course that would just be pettifogging to justify my less than stellar grammar.

Whooooooosh!

[Blackjack]

Whooooooosh!

I caught the splash off the wall.

[davids]

This clown has popped up in my neck of the woods, and I have done some googling. It appears that he is going multi-state.

Check out this:

http://www.usacommonlaw.com/pag.html

Or this, where he tries to bully a court clerk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACPLfUJSi9k

I also note there is a wikipedia page on "Private Attorney General" which seems to be authored with the idea of giving credence to Williams' or other similar hacks legal theories and salesmanship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general

The lunacy abounds.

[Jeffrey]

Anyone want to take a stab at what the hell this Title 70 section 5403 he's talking about is?

[davids]

I googled Title 70 Section 5403 and came up with nothing in any current code or statute. There were a couple of references to an outdated code that applied to the Navy and Marines, while had to do with destroying government records, and the penalties for same, as they were back in the mid-1800s, if you were in the Navy, I presume. In other words, nothing that would remotely impact filing a document in today's world. But not that he'll let that stop him!

[Jeffrey]

Anthony just answered the question in the comments section of the video.

He is citing Title 70 Section 5403 of the US Code, from 1873.

[morrand]

Anthony just answered the question in the comments section of the video.

He is citing Title 70 Section 5403 of the US Code, from 1873.

Revised Statutes of 1873, actually:

Every person who willfully destroys or attempts to destroy, or with intent to steal or destroy, takes and carries away any record, paper, or proceeding of a court of justice, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of such court, or any paper, or document, or record filed or deposited in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer, shall, without reference to the value of the record, paper, document, or proceeding so taken, pay a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or suffer imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than three year[s], or both. (See §§ 5408, 5411, 5412.)

One of the most recent (at the time of this posting) commenters asks why he cited to such an old law, when 18 USC 1519 is the current law; and what difference it makes anyway when neither says the county recorder can't refuse to file documents.

[davids]

Anthony just answered the question in the comments section of the video.

He is citing Title 70 Section 5403 of the US Code, from 1873.

Revised Statutes of 1873, actually:

Every person who willfully destroys or attempts to destroy, or with intent to steal or destroy, takes and carries away any record, paper, or proceeding of a court of justice, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of such court, or any paper, or document, or record filed or deposited in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer, shall, without reference to the value of the record, paper, document, or proceeding so taken, pay a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, or suffer imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than three year[s], or both. (See §§ 5408, 5411, 5412.)

One of the most recent (at the time of this posting) commenters asks why he cited to such an old law, when 18 USC 1519 is the current law; and what difference it makes anyway when neither says the county recorder can't refuse to file documents.

True sovcit comedy is Williams' reply...it reads:

"Because those laws haven't been repealed. Have you heard of a document from 1776 called the Constitution? You can cite whatever law you want, I only use what has worked and plus title 18 is not as comprehensive as Title 70."

So, in the world of Anthony, the Navy code on destroying govt documents from the 1800s is still applicable today. First error.

He then finds that it is analogous to the U.S. Constitution, the only problem with that analysis being the U.S. Constitution actually is still in effect whereas his crusty old off-point Navy law is not. Second error.

Williams then goes full retard, I mean full, and states "You can cite whatever law you want." Third error. By this logic, why not go cite the dog catcher regulations from the capital of Bolivia! That'll work. Sure. Who needs to actually know any of that "law" stuff anyway. (Somehow his followers must be asking why he keeps telling them he does know the law if he has to resort to saying the functional equivalent of it doesn't matter what law you cite, pick one and go with it).

He then puts the cherry on top by stating he "uses what works." Since when did outdated, off point Naval laws "work" with the County recorder's office? And aren't these sovcits all hard line about state's rights and all - you would think he might realize that the ability to regulate what gets filed at the county recorder office in Orange County is something that is firmly within the scope of the authority of the State of California. But noo.....and due to the lack of any semblance of skepticism, reason, or (gasp!) legal education by his followers, they probably still believe his nonsense.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, it's because of his wisdom from yahweh (per his website) it all somehow makes sense, if one has hit his head too many times.

[Gregg]

Have you heard of a document from 1776 called the Constitution?

The Constitution was from 1789, unless he's talking about some other one...

[Famspear]

Anthony just answered the question in the comments section of the video.

He is citing Title 70 Section 5403 of the US Code, from 1873.

The "United States Code" did not come until the year 1926. I'm not sure, but I don't think the United States Code has ever included a "Title 70."

EDIT: There was a "codification" called the "Revised Statutes of the United States of 1878." I'm checking on that now, in terms of a "title 70."

[Famspear]

OK, the original "United States Code" of 1926 was enacted with 50 titles. I'm still checking on the Revised Statutes of 1878.

[Famspear]

OK, it appears that the "Revised Statutes of the United States" was enacted with 70 titles and was reportedly published in volume 18 of the U.S. Statutes (1875), reflecting the laws as of December 1, 1873.

An update, the "Revised Statutes of 1878," came with the Act of Mar. 2, 1877, ch. 82, 19 Stat. 268 and Act of Mar. 9, 1878, ch. 26, 20 Stat. 27. See also 7 Cong. Rec. 1137, 1376-77 (1878).

So, the reference to section such and such of "title 70" probably should be a reference to title 70 of the "Revised Statutes," not to the "United States Code."

EDIT: So, user "morrand" nailed it!

[davids]

It does say something that Williams, though professing to be better trained and more proficient than any real lawyer, is citing an off-point code that is so old and universally disused, except by Williams himself (and even then, only when he tries to bully non lawyer filing clerks, or impress his non lawyer sycophant followers) that one struggles to find reference to it with Google.

A review of his youtube video comments today show him being solicited by new clients, right there on the youtube page. UPL anyone?

[davids]

Another Williams video...this time he walks up to a supposed fbi office and wants to talk to them about his legal theories and such. He gets turned away, his mumbo jumbo not successful in baffling anyone this time out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGE161Y ... GJkHLk9GZQ

And yet another Williams video. He and one or two other sovrun roosters try to get a police officer in Hawaii to act upon a "common law arrest warrant" ( ) and the guy basically looks at them all like they have three heads, and they leave aggrieved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA_V8p ... GJkHLk9GZQ

See a common theme here? Superhero Williams takes one or two of his dupes, tries to get public officials to do what he wants, but even though they aren't lawyers, the public officials always seem to have enough common sense to tell him "no." Funny how that works.

Yet he somehow posts it all to show his "victories".

[Paths of the Sea]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGE161Y ... GJkHLk9GZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA_V8p ... GJkHLk9GZQ

I noticed the following website referenced on one of the forms the guy was using:

http://www.usacommonlaw.com/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Arthur Rubin]

I'm working on the Wikipedia article. What is there seems mostly to lie in civil rights statutes, which actually use the term "private attorney general". I've attempted to clean up some of the vague statements which might be used by SovCits. Help would be appreciated, though, as my Internet connection is a bit problematic at the moment.

[davids]

I'm working on the Wikipedia article. What is there seems mostly to lie in civil rights statutes, which actually use the term "private attorney general". I've attempted to clean up some of the vague statements which might be used by SovCits. Help would be appreciated, though, as my Internet connection is a bit problematic at the moment.

Yes, that's his game alright. He references the Private Attorney General Act on his website. But he takes it a step further and outside of the confines of a case brought under PAGA (which I have some minimal familiarity with), calls himself a "private attorney general," as if it is a title or designation of sorts, or as if one can "generally" be a private attorney general, even if not acting in or through PAGA.

I note this interesting bit from his website: "We also assist home owners who are in foreclosure or need a reduction in their monthly payment." In other words, they do loan mods and amateur legal work. I wonder if Anthony Williams and crew have any passing familiarity with California Senate Bill 94, which prevents accepting up front payments for that kind of work (and actually makes it a minor crime to do so IIRC)?

I also rather enjoyed this boast: " Our office is unique in that we are one of the few offices that truly follows the constitution to the letter." What does that mean? When they take a crap, they call it a "constitutional?"

[GMac]

Williams then goes full retard, I mean full, and states "You can cite whatever law you want." Third error. By this logic, why not go cite the dog catcher regulations from the capital of Bolivia! That'll work.

Huh, I suppose that's the "logic" behind what I've seen of sovruns and their ilk citing bits of state Constitutions, or laws from states that they aren't even being tried in.