PDA

View Full Version : The Modern Bar Association is a criminal enterprise.




Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:20 PM
Does the Bar Association issue licenses to practice law?

BuddyRey
07-09-2010, 02:27 PM
Sure, but there's no legitimate need for attorneys to be licensed (by governments) in the first place. If I want to hire my iguana to advise me in a malpractice suit, or alimony, or whatever else, that should be my right, yes? The free market would weed out incompetent lawyers naturally while still maintaining individual choice and keeping competition alive.

Acala
07-09-2010, 02:29 PM
Does the Bar Association issue licenses to practice law?

It is handled state by state. In some states the State Bar Association controls admission to "The Bar". In other states the court system controls admission. In all states (as far as I know) only members of the bar can appear in court on another's behalf. I think in most states there are also state statutes that prohibit people from doing any kind of legal work (contracts, wills, etc.) unless you are a member of the bar.

Acala
07-09-2010, 02:29 PM
Sure, but there's no legitimate need for attorneys to be licensed in the first place. If I want to hire my iguana to advise me in a malpractice suit, or alimony, or whatever else, that should be my right, yes? The free market would weed out incompetent lawyers naturally while still maintaining individual choice and keeping competition alive.

Agreed

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Sure, but there's no legitimate need for attorneys to be licensed in the first place. If I want to hire my iguana to advise me in a malpractice suit, or alimony, or whatever else, that should be my right, yes? The free market would weed out incompetent lawyers naturally while still maintaining individual choice and keeping competition alive.

noted. law is an occupation of common right that is supported with citations but the thread needs to evolve a little first.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:32 PM
Does the Bar Association issue licenses to practice law?

No. The SUPREME COURT of each of the several states issues licenses to practice law. Membership in the state bar association is governed by the state bar association rules, and is overseen and altered if necessary by the state supreme courts. :rolleyes:

P.S. There is no "the Bar Association". There are, as there were at the founding, numerous state bars...

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:33 PM
It is handled state by state. In some states the State Bar Association controls admission to "The Bar". In other states the court system controls admission. In all states (as far as I know) only members of the bar can appear in court on another's behalf. I think in most states there are also state statutes that prohibit people from doing any kind of legal work (contracts, wills, etc.) unless you are a member of the bar.

Ok. Only members of the Bar can appear in court on another's behalf. I will come back to licensing.

Is the Bar Association government or private?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:35 PM
Sure, but there's no legitimate need for attorneys to be licensed in the first place. If I want to hire my iguana to advise me in a malpractice suit, or alimony, or whatever else, that should be my right, yes? The free market would weed out incompetent lawyers naturally while still maintaining individual choice and keeping competition alive.

I don't have a problem with state bar associations maintaining a standard in law. The pro se motions and petitons from "sovereignty" advocates are absolutely horrific in their legal quality, and are additionally, chock full of bad case law from a hundred years ago. The problem with not having a standard is that the 6th Amendment guarantees a right to counsel----which reasonably understood is not an iguana, or it's "sovereignty" equivalent.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:37 PM
The Constitution has been declared deemed NULL and VOID because the founders did not have law licenses and were legally incompetent to bind subsequent generations to any matter of law they were unlicensed to practice.

FALSE. Patrick Henry and other early American attorneys were required to be admitted into the practice of law, either by passage of an exam, or after being vouched for by other previously admitted competent attorneys.

Acala
07-09-2010, 02:38 PM
Ok. Only members of the Bar can appear in court on another's behalf. I will come back to licensing.

Is the Bar Association government or private?

Quasi-govenment. I can only speak for the two in which I am a member. They are funded by member dues, not taxes, but you must belong in order to appear in court for someone else and that rule is enforced by the State. So they are like closed-shop unions enforced by law.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:40 PM
noted. law is an occupation of common right that is supported with citations but the thread needs to evolve a little first.

You are free to represent yourself in as dreadfully ineffective a fashion as you choose, but representing others in matters while so dreadfully unversed and unable in the law is appalling. It would be wheat before a combine.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:41 PM
Quasi-govenment. I can only speak for the two in which I am a member. They are funded by member dues, not taxes, but you must belong in order to appear in court for someone else and that rule is enforced by the State. So they are like closed-shop unions enforced by law.

Not true, all states, and definitely my state of Arizona allows for Pro hac Vice admittance to practice.

Arizona's bar is run by the state supreme court.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-09-2010, 02:42 PM
I have noticed a fascinating trend. I have found with a high frequency to my consternation that those in the privileged industries fight to keep their privileges all the while proclaiming they are free-marketeers, libertarians, liberty-lovers, or other such fancies that suit them. You are no liberty-lovers. You are no free-marketeers. I have openly told those I work with (and many agree!) that the CG should be wholly "marketized", so those who proclaim to love liberty, start acting like it!:p Anyways, it just irks me the hypocrisy from some in the movement.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:44 PM
Quasi-govenment. I can only speak for the two in which I am a member. They are funded by member dues, not taxes, but you must belong in order to appear in court for someone else and that rule is enforced by the State. So they are like closed-shop unions enforced by law.

That is an astonishing admission. The very notion one must be a member of a private union to practice a common right occupation strikes at the heart of the matter.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:45 PM
I have noticed a fascinating trend. I have found with a high frequency to my consternation that those in the privileged industries fight to keep their privileges all the while proclaiming they are free-marketeers, libertarians, liberty-lovers, or other such fancies that suit them. You are no liberty-lovers. You are no free-marketeers. I have openly told those I work with (and many agree!) that the CG should be wholly "marketized", so those who proclaim to love liberty, start acting like it!:p Anyways, it just irks me the hypocrisy from some in the movement.

The ability of people to serve as their OWN counsel is not questioned whatsoever, and I am perfectly fine with opening civil practice to attorneys who decided not to attend a law school who have been admitted to a bar, but I think that in criminal matters, it would violate the 6th Amendment to allow unskilled and unable "lawyers" to attempt defenses.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:46 PM
That is an astonishing admission. The very notion one must be a member of a private union to practice a common right occupation strikes at the heart of the matter.

You do not need to be a member of any private union to practice a common right....

Everyone can defend themselves or bring a pro se lawsuit without utilizing an attorney.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-09-2010, 02:46 PM
The ability of people to serve as their OWN counsel is not questioned whatsoever, and I am perfectly fine with opening civil practice to attorneys who decided not to attend a law school who have been admitted to a bar, but I think that in criminal matters, it would violate the 6th Amendment to allow unskilled and unable "lawyers" to attempt defenses.

And if the accused wished for that person to be their counsel you would deny them their right because they were not "licensed"? You are afterall, looking out for their greater good, right?

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:47 PM
Arizona's bar is run by the state supreme court.

Interesting concept, a judicial branch in the licensing business.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-09-2010, 02:47 PM
You do not need to be a member of any private union to practice a common right....

Everyone can defend themselves or bring a pro se lawsuit without utilizing an attorney.

So I can open up a law practice, without having a law license?

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-09-2010, 02:48 PM
Interesting concept, a judicial branch in the licensing business.

Hey Live! Don't you know that Statutory Law is the greatest thing! Who needs Common Law!

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:48 PM
And if the accused wished for that person to be their counsel you would deny them their right because they were not "licensed"? You are afterall, looking out for their greater good, right?

It's not a matter of licensing, it's a matter of ensuring that the accused has a FAIR trial. If an attorney who has not been admitted to a state bar wishes to represent someone, he can petition for pro hac vice admission, and it will almost certainly be granted, up to several times per year.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:49 PM
Interesting concept, a judicial branch in the licensing business.

As I recall, all state bar associations are subject to the state supreme court.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:50 PM
You do not need to be a member of any private union to practice a common right....

Everyone can defend themselves or bring a pro se lawsuit without utilizing an attorney.

So I can prepare law contracts for a fee or prepare legal briefs for a fee without being a member of the private union?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:50 PM
So I can open up a law practice, without having a law license?

Sure. In Virginia for instance, you don't need a law degree, you just need to be admitted to practice law by the VA Supreme Court after a three year apprenticeship.

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Sure. In Virginia for instance, you don't need a law degree, you just need to be admitted to practice law by the VA Supreme Court after a three year apprenticeship.

Whoosh.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:51 PM
As I recall, all state bar associations are subject to the state supreme court.

Which supreme court doesn't change how interesting the concept is of a judicial branch licensing, it just makes it more interesting if it is the Supreme Court issuing certificates. Are certificates a license?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:51 PM
So I can prepare law contracts for a fee or prepare legal briefs for a fee without being a member of the private union?

I didn't say that.... but sure, if you want to pay yourself for drafting your own documents, that's your affair.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 02:53 PM
Which supreme court doesn't change how interesting the concept is, it just makes it more interesting if it is the Supreme Court issuing certificates. Are certificates a license?

No. A person merely applies for admission to the State Supreme Court, and if they satisfy the requirements necessary for professional and personal ability, they are admitted to practice.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 02:54 PM
No. A person merely applies for admission to the State Supreme Court, and if they satisfy the requirements necessary for professional and personal ability, they are admitted to practice.

Admitted to what? Do they get a license?

Acala
07-09-2010, 02:54 PM
Not true, all states, and definitely my state of Arizona allows for Pro hac Vice admittance to practice.

Arizona's bar is run by the state supreme court.

I am admitted in Arizona. The Court in Arizona allows, on a case by case basis, the admission of attorneys in good standing in the bar from other states to appear in Arizona courts IF they associate local Arizona counsel.

Admission to the Arizona bar is administered by the State Bar of Arizona, not the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court has the ultimate approval of the State Bar's operations when it comes to admissions. Essentially the court has delegated admission to the State Bar. The Bar, not the Supreme Court, prepares and administers the exams, operates the Continuing Legal Education system, administers discipline, maintains records, etc.

Acala
07-09-2010, 02:57 PM
As I recall, all state bar associations are subject to the state supreme court.

This is true

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:00 PM
U.S. Supreme Court
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957)

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico

No. 92

Argued January 14-15, 1957

Decided May 6, 1957

353 U.S. 232

Syllabus

In 1953 the Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico refused to permit petitioner to take the bar examination, on the ground that he had not shown "good moral character," and thereby precluded his admission to the bar of that State. It was conceded that petitioner was qualified in all other respects. Petitioner made a strong showing of good moral character, except that it appeared that, from 1933 to 1937, he had used certain aliases, that he had been arrested (but never tried or convicted) on several occasions prior to 1940, and that, from 1932 to 1940, he was a member of the Communist Party. The State Supreme Court sustained the Board.

Held: On the record in this case, the State of New Mexico deprived petitioner of due process in denying him the opportunity to qualify for the practice of law. Pp. 353 U. S. 233-247.

(a) A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 353 U. S. 238-239.

(b) A State can require high standards of qualifications, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar; but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. P. 353 U. S. 239.

(c) Even in applying permissible standards, officers of the State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. P. 353 U. S. 239.

(d) Whether the practice of law is a "right" or a "privilege" need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State's grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. P. 353 U. S. 239, n 5.

(e) Petitioner's use from 1934 to 1937 of certain aliases, for purposes which were not wrong and not to cheat or defraud, does

Page 353 U. S. 233

not support an inference of bad moral character more than 20 years later. Pp. 353 U. S. 240-241.

(f) The arrests of petitioner are insufficient to support a finding that he had bad moral character at the time he applied to take the bar examination. Pp. 353 U. S. 241-243.

(g) Petitioner's membership in the Communist Party from 1932 to 1940 does not justify an inference that he presently has bad moral character. Pp. 353 U. S. 243-246.

(h) The use of aliases, the arrests, and former membership in the Communist Party do not in combination warrant exclusion of petitioner from the practice of law. P. 353 U. S. 246.

(i) In the light of petitioner's forceful showing of good moral character, the evidence upon which the State relies cannot be said to raise substantial doubts as to his present good moral character. P. 353 U. S. 246.

60 N.M. 304, 291 P.2d 607, reversed and remanded.

Acala
07-09-2010, 03:01 PM
No. A person merely applies for admission to the State Supreme Court, and if they satisfy the requirements necessary for professional and personal ability, they are admitted to practice.

This is false - at least in Arizona and California. If you want to practice law in those states (and I don't mean Pro Hac, which is a single event not a practice) you apply to the State Bar, not the court. The State Bar then crawls up your ass with a microscope and if you survive the scrutiny, then theState Bar, not the court, gives you an exam. If you pass, then the State Bar tells the court to let you in.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:02 PM
Who does the licensing.. the State or ________?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:02 PM
Sure, they unnecessarily restrain trade to some extent, irritating me by making me pass several bar exams in several states...State bar associations serve to prevent legal "Jonestowns" from occuring.

Say for instance, a case is brought in which a "sovereign" citizen is alleging that he can drive intoxicated through a state without being subject to a state's motor vehicle regulations on account of having a cardboard license-plate and driver's "license" issued by his own sovereign nation....

If he's represented by one of his friends, he's going to lose, guaranteed...

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:05 PM
This is false - at least in Arizona and California. If you want to practice law in those states (and I don't mean Pro Hac, which is a single event not a practice) you apply to the State Bar, not the court. The State Bar then crawls up your ass with a microscope and if you survive the scrutiny, then theState Bar, not the court, gives you an exam. If you pass, then the State Bar tells the court to let you in.

False. At least in Arizona, Nevada, and Texas if you wish to practice law, you apply to the Supreme Court of the respective state.

The bar associations merely oversee the testing process, and issue a recommendation to the supreme court of the said state, a recommendation which can and has been overturned by the state supreme courts on appeal.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:07 PM
False. At least in Arizona, Nevada, and Texas if you wish to practice law, you apply to the Supreme Court of the respective state.

The bar associations merely oversee the testing process, and issue a recommendation to the supreme court of the said state, a recommendation which can and has been overturned by the state supreme courts on appeal.

Ok maybe I should rephrase the question. Is there any state in the union where law licenses are issued by agents of the state executive branch enforcing licensing statues created by state legislatures?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:08 PM
U.S. Supreme Court
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957)

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico

No. 92

Argued January 14-15, 1957

Decided May 6, 1957

353 U.S. 232

Syllabus

In 1953 the Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico refused to permit petitioner to take the bar examination, on the ground that he had not shown "good moral character," and thereby precluded his admission to the bar of that State. It was conceded that petitioner was qualified in all other respects. Petitioner made a strong showing of good moral character, except that it appeared that, from 1933 to 1937, he had used certain aliases, that he had been arrested (but never tried or convicted) on several occasions prior to 1940, and that, from 1932 to 1940, he was a member of the Communist Party. The State Supreme Court sustained the Board.

Held: On the record in this case, the State of New Mexico deprived petitioner of due process in denying him the opportunity to qualify for the practice of law. Pp. 353 U. S. 233-247.

(a) A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 353 U. S. 238-239.

(b) A State can require high standards of qualifications, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar; but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. P. 353 U. S. 239.

(c) Even in applying permissible standards, officers of the State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory. P. 353 U. S. 239.

(d) Whether the practice of law is a "right" or a "privilege" need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State's grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. P. 353 U. S. 239, n 5.

(e) Petitioner's use from 1934 to 1937 of certain aliases, for purposes which were not wrong and not to cheat or defraud, does

Page 353 U. S. 233

not support an inference of bad moral character more than 20 years later. Pp. 353 U. S. 240-241.

(f) The arrests of petitioner are insufficient to support a finding that he had bad moral character at the time he applied to take the bar examination. Pp. 353 U. S. 241-243.

(g) Petitioner's membership in the Communist Party from 1932 to 1940 does not justify an inference that he presently has bad moral character. Pp. 353 U. S. 243-246.

(h) The use of aliases, the arrests, and former membership in the Communist Party do not in combination warrant exclusion of petitioner from the practice of law. P. 353 U. S. 246.

(i) In the light of petitioner's forceful showing of good moral character, the evidence upon which the State relies cannot be said to raise substantial doubts as to his present good moral character. P. 353 U. S. 246.

60 N.M. 304, 291 P.2d 607, reversed and remanded.

Yes? This case merely involves the attempt of a former communist party member to be admitted to practice law and defend the constitution of the United States and of New Mexico from all enemies...

A person may not be barred except for valid reasons.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:09 PM
Ok maybe I should rephrase the question. Is there any state in the union where law licenses are issued by agents of the state executive branch enforcing licensing statues created by state legislatures?

I don't believe so.

I am not aware of any state in which law licenses are issued by agents of the state executive branch enforcing licensing statues created by state legislatures.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:12 PM
I don't believe so.

I am not aware of any state in which law licenses are issued by agents of the state executive branch enforcing licensing statues created by state legislatures.

This thread just gets better with every post. We have clearly established state governments do not issue licenses to practice law. Who issues them exactly and how is it lawful because the license is not issued by state government?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:14 PM
This thread just gets better with every post. We have clearly established state governments do not issue licenses to practice law. Who issues them exactly and how is it lawful because the license is not issued by state government?

The state supreme court is a part of the state government, and it IS the STATE SUPREME COURT which controls and regulates admission to the practice of law, at least in the states in which I am admitted (and in all others that I am aware of).

Acala
07-09-2010, 03:16 PM
False. At least in Arizona, Nevada, and Texas if you wish to practice law, you apply to the Supreme Court of the respective state.

The bar associations merely oversee the testing process, and issue a recommendation to the supreme court of the said state, a recommendation which can and has been overturned by the state supreme courts on appeal.

I don't think we disagree. The Court makes the ultimate decision, but the Bar does all the leg work, the investigation, the testing, the CLA, the record-keeping, and the discipline.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:17 PM
The state supreme court is a part of the state government, and it IS the STATE SUPREME COURT which controls and regulations admission to the practice of law, at least in the states in which I am admitted (and in all others that I am aware of).

Under what authority does a judicial branch have power to issue licenses and create a government protected privilege with immunities?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:17 PM
I don't think we disagree. The Court makes the ultimate decision, but the Bar does all the leg work, the investigation, the testing, the CLA, the record-keeping, and the discipline.

Yes.

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:19 PM
Under what authority does a judicial branch have power to issue licenses and create a government protected privilege with immunities?

I'm not going to get into a 14th Amendment quagmire here with you.


I will simply say that state governments derive their power from the people of the state, as enumerated in state constitution and not prohibited by it. State supreme courts derive their power from the state constitutions.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm not going to get into a 14th Amendment quagmire here with you.

I will simply say that state governments derive their power from the people of the state, as enumerated in state constitution and not prohibited by it.

Remember who opened this can before you don't want to get into things...

I just want to know how a judicial branch can create enforceable law. You said I can't write a contract or brief for a fee and I am assuming the state executive branch will imprison me if i do?

How does that work exactly?

There is still the other issue of how does the judicial branch compel individuals to join a specific union to practice an occupation.

If I form a drivers union can we issue our own driver licenses? Can we compel people to join our drivers union and pay our drivers union dues before they can legally drive?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:27 PM
Remember who opened this can before you don't want to get into things...

Yeah, you did.



I just want to know how a judicial branch can create enforceable law.

Easily, it's how the common law has operated for 1500 years.



You said I can't write a contract or brief for a fee and the state executive branch will imprison me if i do?

No, I didn't say that. You can pay yourself to write your own contracts without any problem whatsoever.



There is still the other issue of how does the judicial branch compel individuals to join a specific union to practice an occupation.

If I form a drivers union can we issue our own driver licenses? Can we compel people to join our drivers union and pay our drivers union dues before they can legally drive?

Did you just form a state? I think you may have... ;)

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 03:38 PM
No, I didn't say that. You can pay yourself to write your own contracts without any problem whatsoever.

So how would that work in a notion of a Republic and a state like Florida where all legislative power is vested in a legislature?


SECTION 1. Composition.--The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a legislature of the State of Florida, consisting of a senate composed of one senator elected from each senatorial district and a house of representatives composed of one member elected from each representative district.

How does a state judicial branch in Florida and not a state legislature in Florida create enforceable law?


Did you just form a state? I think you may have... ;)

Are you suggesting We The People should start executing traitors to constitutions?

John Taylor
07-09-2010, 03:53 PM
1) So how would that work in a notion of a Republic and a state like Florida where all legislative power is vested in a legislature?


2) How does a state judicial branch in Florida and not a state legislature in Florida create enforceable law?


3) Are you suggesting We The People should start executing traitors to constitutions?

1) All LEGISLATIVE power. Common law is a judicial power, it arises from judicial precedent, not statutory law.

2) Common law courts have been creating common law without a legislature for well over a thousand years.

3) If someone betrays a constitution, I believe that may qualify as treason, and the death penalty is one available for convicted traitors.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 04:07 PM
1) All LEGISLATIVE power. Common law is a judicial power, it arises from judicial precedent, not statutory law.

2) Common law courts have been creating common law without a legislature for well over a thousand years.

3) If someone betrays a constitution, I believe that may qualify as treason, and the death penalty is one available for convicted traitors.

Licensing occupations is not a legislative power?

Is licensing travel a legislative power?

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 04:13 PM
SIMS v. AHRENS, 167 Ark. 557 (1925)



Since, also, all occupations are here sought to be taxed by the State, and the tax on all such occupations as are not privileges is void, the entire act is void, because the void and the valid parts cannot be separated. The word "privilege," as applied to occupations, is limited to those which are subject to police regulation. 27 Ark. 629; 43 Ark. 82. A common-law right is not the creature of a license law. 61 Ark. 486. A license implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is right, free and open to all. 49 L.R.A. (Ill.) 412. See also 107 U.S. 365. The right to follow any of the common occupations of life or to earn one's living in any innocent vocation without let or hindrance is an inalienable right, secured to all those living under our form of government by the liberty, property and happiness clauses of our national and State constitutions.

This is one of those interesting cases that is just worth a read in full:
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=ARCASE&cite=167+Ark.+557

heavenlyboy34
07-09-2010, 04:27 PM
SIMS v. AHRENS, 167 Ark. 557 (1925)

Shouldn't this read "unalienable" rather than "inalienable"? :confused:

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 04:40 PM
Shouldn't this read "unalienable" rather than "inalienable"? :confused:

I have always been under the impression it is "unalienable" because that is the term in the DoI. I am not even sure where the term inalienable comes from and why there is such confusion.

Acala
07-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Licensing occupations is not a legislative power?

Is licensing travel a legislative power?

What the Supreme Court does isn't so much licensing an occupation as it is allowing people in their door. You need its permission to participate in its procedures as an advocate. In fact, the Court considers duly admitted lawyers to be "officers of the court" with certain obligations toward the court and certain rules to follow.

I believe that restrictions on non-lawyers practicing law outside the courtroom come from the legislature.

Danke
07-09-2010, 04:53 PM
You have the right to the Assistance of Counsel of your choosing. The End.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 05:03 PM
What the Supreme Court does isn't so much licensing an occupation as it is allowing people in their door. You need its permission to participate in its procedures as an advocate. In fact, the Court considers duly admitted lawyers to be "officers of the court" with certain obligations toward the court and certain rules to follow.

I believe that restrictions on non-lawyers practicing law outside the courtroom come from the legislature.

There is a lot of vagueness in some of the replies. Almost to the point of silly actually. Can someone put forth definitive answers? It shouldn't be that complicated.

Do you have to have a license to perform work in an occupation of law? (Yes or No)

Do you have to be a dues paying member in any specific private union to perform work in an occupation of law? (Yes or No)

Is unlicensed performance of work in an occupation of law subject to police power? (Yes or No)

Are individuals not members of any specific private union performing work in an occupation of law subject to police power? (Yes or No)

Those aren't rocket science questions.

Acala
07-09-2010, 05:20 PM
There is a lot of vagueness in some of the replies. Almost to the point of silly actually. Can someone put forth definitive answers. It shouldn't be that complicated.

Do you have to a license to perform work in an occupation of law? (Yes or No)

Do you have to be a dues paying member in any specific private union to perform work in an occupation of law? (Yes or No)

Is unlicensed performance of work in an occupation of law subject to police power? (Yes or No)

Those aren't rocket science questions.

I'm trying to give you the answers you are looking for.

First - it is a matter of state law and so can vary from state to state.

As far as I know, the State Courts get to police their own operation. In other words, the court makes the rules for how the court operates - within Constitutional limits. Among those powers is the power to decide who gets to represent people in the court. So you could call that a license to practice before the court if you want.

But there are many legal services that do not involve going to court. Providing those legal services is not directly within the power of the court to regulate. They try and regulate it by regulating the lawyers who are in the bar (licensed to practice in the court). For example, they prohibit members of the bar from associating with anyone who practices law that is NOT a member of the bar. But the court can't, for example, stop a non-lawyer from writing a will for someone.

Legislatures can and often do prohbit lawyers that are not "licensed" by the court from doing non-court legal work like drafting contracts, wills etc.

But I believe that in Arizona there is no longer any law prohibiting the practice of law by non-lawyers EXCEPT in court. Mr. Taylor can correct me if I am wrong on this.

So I don't think you don't need a license to practice law in Arizona except in court.

So, boiled down and using your terms, state governments issue licenses for providing certain kinds of legal services.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 06:12 PM
I'm trying to give you the answers you are looking for.

I can't even begin to convey the irony of lawyers not being able to provide simple yes or no answers about the occupation of law or the bar when these same lawyers demand yes or no answers from the rest of society.

Yes I am making light of the subject but a judiciary branch that has monopoly power to arbitrate protected by a monopoly of force having exclusive authority to determine who can practice law and dictate they must be a member of a union is a racket.

And people wonder why justice is so expensive....

heavenlyboy34
07-09-2010, 06:19 PM
I have always been under the impression it is "unalienable" because that is the term in the DoI. I am not even sure where the term inalienable comes from and why there is such confusion.

Jefferson chose "unalienable" because it means that such rights (as listed in the DOI) can not be separated(made alien) from the individual. This may seem overly technical, but such issues demand concise language, IMHO. :cool:

YumYum
07-09-2010, 06:32 PM
In Denton County, Texas, a civilian cannot appear before a judge without an attorney by his or her side to plea his case. In Tennessee and Missouri you can.

Texas has the most corrupt legal system where guardianship laws are concerned. I talked to an attorney who admitted that what the lawyers in Texas practice pertaining to Elder Law in Texas would be considered criminal in other states. When an elderly couple who are rich need a guardian, and the children begin a dispute as to who should get guardianship, the judge claims "this family to be the most dysfunctional family to ever enter into this court", and appoints a guardian ad litem for the elderly folks and takes control of all their finances and assets. He also makes the elderly couple a ward of the court. The attorney sells everything they own, draws a huge monthly salary for his/her efforts, and pays to the court out of their money enormous court cost. When the elderly person(s) are bled dry, they are stuck in a state facility to die; Texas has some of the worst state facilities for the elderly in the Nation.

From what I have seen, the Texas legal system is evil and corrupt. Is this true of the whole state?

I never understood how they could execute people who were proven to be mentally retarded.

mczerone
07-09-2010, 06:54 PM
Sure, they unnecessarily restrain trade to some extent, irritating me by making me pass several bar exams in several states...State bar associations serve to prevent legal "Jonestowns" from occuring.

Say for instance, a case is brought in which a "sovereign" citizen is alleging that he can drive intoxicated through a state without being subject to a state's motor vehicle regulations on account of having a cardboard license-plate and driver's "license" issued by his own sovereign nation....

If he's represented by one of his friends, he's going to lose, guaranteed...

For God's sake, I'm not even a lawyer yet, and I could argue that "rogue drunk" case with a blindfold on and my hands tied behind my back. I fail to see how your example requires a cartel to enforce a monopolist standard. Or how anyone could expect that said standard would be best enforced by a single government agency rather than a myriad of competing lawyer-endorsers.

State Bars, in collusion with State legislatures and judiciaries, are simply a protectionist measure giving the "good 'ol boys" an advantage over the uninitiated.

The numerous geographically-monopolizing bar associations work to protect old money and bad lawyers. The free market would regulate lawyers far better than their "bar membership" could ever do.

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 07:02 PM
State Bars, in collusion with State legislatures and judiciaries, are simply a protectionist measure giving the "good 'ol boys" an advantage over the uninitiated.

The judiciary racket and bar operates outside the legislature. All licenses from a state originate in the legislature. Lawyers are not licensed the racket just mandates they be a dues paying union member that will abide by the union rules. That is part of the larger point. The judiciary racket is a government unto itself creating its own protectionist law backed up with the force of police power.

bobbyw24
07-09-2010, 07:05 PM
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

470 U.S. 274

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 83-1466 Argued: October 31, 1984 --- Decided: March 4, 1985

Appellee, a resident of Vermont, was allowed to take, and passed, the New Hampshire bar examination. But pursuant to Rule 42 of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which limits bar admission to state residents, she was not permitted to be sworn in. After the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied appellee's request that an exception to the Rule be made in her case, she filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, 2, of the United States Constitution. The District Court agreed, and granted appellee's motion for a summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, 2. Pp. 279-288.

(a) Derived, like the Commerce Clause, from the fourth of the Articles of Confederation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to create a national economic union.

[O]ne of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State.

Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396. Moreover, although a lawyer is "an officer of the court," he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a "full-fledged member of the political community" and thus is not an "officer" of the State in any political sense. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717. Therefore, a nonresident's interest in practicing law is a "privilege" protected by the Clause. Pp. 279-283.

(b) A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are "substantial" and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relationship to those reasons. None of the reasons offered by appellant for its refusal to admit nonresidents to the bar -- nonresidents would be less likely to keep abreast of local rules and procedures, to behave ethically, to be available for court proceedings, and to do pro bono and other volunteer work in the State -- meets the test of "substantiality," and the means chosen do not bear the necessary relationship to the State's objectives. Pp. 284-287.

723 F.2d 110, affirmed.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., [p275] joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 288. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 289.

bobbyw24
07-09-2010, 07:11 PM
Article V, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Florida gives the Supreme Court of Florida exclusive and ultimate authority to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of those persons who are admitted to practice. The Court performs those official functions through two separate arms: the Florida Board of Bar Examiners , which screens, tests and certifies candidates for admission to the practice; and The Florida Bar, the investigative and prosecutorial authority in the lawyer regulatory process. Neither of these two agencies, nor any of their functions, is supported by state tax dollars.

http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/flabarwe.nsf/f6301f4d554d40a385256a4f006e6566/47fc0a8f415a11d285256b2f006ccb83?OpenDocument#What %20is%20The%20Florida%20Bar%3F

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-09-2010, 07:18 PM
Article V, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Florida gives the Supreme Court of Florida exclusive and ultimate authority to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of those persons who are admitted to practice. The Court performs those official functions through two separate arms: the Florida Board of Bar Examiners , which screens, tests and certifies candidates for admission to the practice; and The Florida Bar, the investigative and prosecutorial authority in the lawyer regulatory process. Neither of these two agencies, nor any of their functions, is supported by state tax dollars.

http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/flabarwe.nsf/f6301f4d554d40a385256a4f006e6566/47fc0a8f415a11d285256b2f006ccb83?OpenDocument#What %20is%20The%20Florida%20Bar%3F

Yup... a 1972 modification on 3/14/1972 to the 1968 Florida constitution... if you want to review the five different Florida constitutions and their vast amendment history you can do so here:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/crc/conhist/contents.html

This is not the case for every state but every state bar works pretty much the same way.

How do you sell a racket? Never let a good problem go to waste...
A couple old newspaper clippings:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DwYNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XWEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2608,3698255&dq=florida+1971+constitutional+amendment+article+v&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gnkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fbcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5580,6233096&dq=florida+1971+constitutional+amendment+article+v&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vfsoAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vNEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=799,3876528&dq=florida+1971+constitutional+amendment&hl=en

Danke
07-09-2010, 07:43 PM
Look up the Original 13th amendment and what the Bible says about lawyers.

John Taylor
07-10-2010, 03:09 AM
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

470 U.S. 274

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 83-1466 Argued: October 31, 1984 --- Decided: March 4, 1985

Appellee, a resident of Vermont, was allowed to take, and passed, the New Hampshire bar examination. But pursuant to Rule 42 of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which limits bar admission to state residents, she was not permitted to be sworn in. After the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied appellee's request that an exception to the Rule be made in her case, she filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, 2, of the United States Constitution. The District Court agreed, and granted appellee's motion for a summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, 2. Pp. 279-288.

(a) Derived, like the Commerce Clause, from the fourth of the Articles of Confederation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to create a national economic union.

[O]ne of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State.

Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396. Moreover, although a lawyer is "an officer of the court," he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a "full-fledged member of the political community" and thus is not an "officer" of the State in any political sense. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717. Therefore, a nonresident's interest in practicing law is a "privilege" protected by the Clause. Pp. 279-283.

(b) A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are "substantial" and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relationship to those reasons. None of the reasons offered by appellant for its refusal to admit nonresidents to the bar -- nonresidents would be less likely to keep abreast of local rules and procedures, to behave ethically, to be available for court proceedings, and to do pro bono and other volunteer work in the State -- meets the test of "substantiality," and the means chosen do not bear the necessary relationship to the State's objectives. Pp. 284-287.

723 F.2d 110, affirmed.

POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., [p275] joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 288. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 289.

This ruling only establishes that non-residents are constitutionally entitled to take a bar exam in another state.

John Taylor
07-10-2010, 03:10 AM
Look up the Original 13th amendment and what the Bible says about lawyers.

Isaiah says that lawyers should be advocates for justice, and should strive to prevent tyranny.

John Taylor
07-10-2010, 03:13 AM
For God's sake, I'm not even a lawyer yet, and I could argue that "rogue drunk" case with a blindfold on and my hands tied behind my back. I fail to see how your example requires a cartel to enforce a monopolist standard. Or how anyone could expect that said standard would be best enforced by a single government agency rather than a myriad of competing lawyer-endorsers.

State Bars, in collusion with State legislatures and judiciaries, are simply a protectionist measure giving the "good 'ol boys" an advantage over the uninitiated.

The numerous geographically-monopolizing bar associations work to protect old money and bad lawyers. The free market would regulate lawyers far better than their "bar membership" could ever do.

If you wish me to explain it in more depth, PM me, and I'll explain precisely why it is that laymen seeking to represent themselves or others in court almost always lose.

There ARE a myriad of competing lawyer endorsers, they are the 50 states...

State bars maintain a MINIMUM standard for legal practice... it isn't a particularly high standard, but it is one which guarantees that attorneys have a modicum of ability and professional knowledge.

John Taylor
07-10-2010, 03:17 AM
Licensing occupations is not a legislative power?

Is licensing travel a legislative power?

1) It is the state supreme court which admits or denies applicants... NOT the legislature.

2) I'm not going down your "sovereignty-road-travel-cardboard license-plate rabbit hole".

Live_Free_Or_Die
07-10-2010, 04:42 AM
1) It is the state supreme court which admits or denies applicants... NOT the legislature.

2) I'm not going down your "sovereignty-road-travel-cardboard license-plate rabbit hole".

Re: #1... have i claimed differently?

Re: #2... I am not pushing human travel, I just mentioned it. The point was:

1) only states via state legislatures can license privileges exercising legislative power
2) the occupation of law can not be licensed by a state because it is a common right
3) the court circumvents that common right (notice i did not assert common law right...) by creating a government of itself which as you put it "admits or denies applicants" (to the lawyer union) (to obtain a certificate which is not a license) to practice law
4) there is a reason the state cannot license law and it is a common right because if understanding law is a privilege the judicial cartel can not hold people accountable to the standard ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
5) the judicial racket creates its own protectionist laws enforced with police power to persecute anyone else who doesn't have a law license but is not a member of the lawyer union when exercising a common right performing the occupation of law

about the only relevance licensing travel has is there is probably about as much word play and twisting of words and definitions in the licensure of travel as there is in your defense of the judicial cartel.

i haven't ever sat down and had a conversation with Dr. Paul but if he told me the reason he is not crazy about people pursuing justice in the courts was anything related to the above.... it would not surprise me....