From the December 2006 Idaho Observer:

Doctrine: A rule, principle, theory or tenet of the law. ~Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th and 6th editions

As our world unravels (and it is), help in understanding why it’s unraveling is coming from some amazing places. Sometimes the "help" appears unsolicited in the mail—like what came one day recently from a practicing attorney who is not happy with the state of his profession.

What most people do not realize is that, when they enter a court, the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" is not in play—contrary to the beliefs we have held since being conditioned to believe them in government grade school.

A practical application of the definition of "doctrine" as cited above is that the government court opens a case with presumptions. We have been taught since childhood that the government court "presumes" defendants are "innocent until proven guilty." But today’s courts do not open with that presumption. To claim the court presumes innocence is a lie; believing the lie makes bars and razorwire of a fool’s paradise.

The doctrines, or presumptions, extant the moment a bailiff orders, "All rise," set the stage for government actors to lie, allow perjured testimony and, in essence, do whatever it takes to achieve convictions—or get away with murder.

Following is a list of presumptions judges are tacitly observing as our cases begin. As you will see, our oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help us God) is meaningless to the court; the court, its officers and those who will be making the government’s case against us will be operating under a completely different set of rules intended to "trump" your truth.

Eleven doctrines (presumptions)

1) Governmental regularity: This is supposedly a rebutable presumption, meaning that, if the defendant puts on evidence showing that an action taken was not a part of lawful government action, then the presumption is not supposed to stand and the government must prove regularity. However, the way it works today is that the judge will block defendants’ opportunities to present any such evidence, using a variety of exclusionary rules to mask the truth, or the judge will "weigh the evidence" and determine that the government’s evidence "weighs more," therefore "proving" government "regularity" to the court.

2) Governmental correctness: Used particularly in the context of tax cases, the judge will allow the government to make up facts regarding the applicable law without questioning its interpretation of it. This, too, is supposedly a rebutable presumption, but the judge can block defendants’ opportunities to present any such evidence, using a variety of exclusionary rules to mask the truth, "proving" to the court that the action(s) taken by the government was "correct" no matter how outrageous.

3) Immunity: Judges and prosecutors "enjoy" absolute freedom from any consequences for actions taken. Police and all other lower-level government officials also enjoy the court’s presumption that it will not hold them personally responsible for actions taken in their public capacity.

4) Collective responsibility: A government actor is viewed as part of the government whole and he is to be held no more (or less) accountable for his actions than the entire government.

5) Plausible deniability: If a government actor claims that he cannot remember or has no idea what is being referred to, the court accepts the claims absent direct evidence to the contrary.

6) Master race philosophy: Government actors, from caseworkers and cops on up, are superior to members of the public because they have of the power of life and death over them. The court tends to honor "conspiracies of silence" among government actors—reinforcing government actors’ "we’re the ‘good guys’ and they’re the ‘bad guys’" view of life and the "law."

7) Fellow officer rule: This is a "rule of evidence (judge made law)" recognized by courts that allows police to testify, in a criminal case, that what they were told by another officer during a criminal investigation is a "fact"—in violation of the "hearsay" rule. The courts view such testimony inherently "reliable" because "cops don’t lie." The only way to beat the "fellow officer" rule is to obtain knowledge of the truth and to be "granted" the opportunity to cross examine each officer and demonstrate, on the record, their inconsistent statements—an opportunity that can be blocked by the judge using a variety of exclusionary rules…

8) Crony system: Government actors (judges, prosecutors, agencies/agents, expert witnesses) tend to end up in court together all the time; they develop relationships both interpersonally (socially) and professionally and, thus, view each other as "insiders." Conversely, those who are not insiders are "outsiders." This sociological "doctrine," apparent in almost all aspects of society, has been a part of the socialized human condition since cave days.

9) The Common Law: "Common" people like to believe that "common law," or "natural "law" is the presumption that "all men are created equal" and must, therefore, be treated "equally" under the law. Natural law, however, is the "law of the jungle" which is "dominance and submission." The founding American principle that "the citizens are masters of the government slave" has met the same fate as a citizen being "innocent until proven guilty." In modern legal presumption, the government is "master" of the citizen "slave."

10) Closure/finality: The courts are overburdened with cases and seek expeditious results to dispense with cases and move onto others. Achieving a just result is seldom as important as obtaining a verdict and moving onto the next case

11) The End Justifies The Means: Predicated on the imperial philosophy of "We’re the ‘good guys’ and they’re the ‘bad guys,’" the government presumes that it "does no wrong." So, even if government or government actors broke laws, told lies or destroyed lives, the end result of the actions taken were honorable and well-intended. The ends justify the means because the government "master race" has superior knowledge and knows that it must protect people from themselves and that the best way to serve the people is to lie, deceive, torture and kill them now and then to remind them that they have no rights and the "privilege" of living is granted or denied at the whim of government.

Breaking presumptions

Government assumes that we are 14th Amendment, U.S. citizens and, therefore, do not have a Constitution to protect us. As U.S. citizens, government courts presume that it’s mediating issues between parent governments and child citizens—and exercises its authority accordingly. All 11 of the "doctrines" listed here flow from the 14th Amendment parent government/child citizen presumption. It follows that, once the presumption of our 14th Amendment status is broken, the other presumptions will also be broken. Regardless, before we can plan to prevail in court, we must break the court’s presumptions.