Sheriff revokes license of gun owner and son for writing letter to the editor

[Dobertarian]

Sheriff revokes license of gun owner and son for writing letter to the editor critical of sheriff
Published on 07-10-2010 Email To Friend Print Version
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Source: Sioux City Journal

PRIMGHAR, Iowa -- U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett has ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment.

Bennett’s written decision on Wednesday involves the case of Paul Dorr, of Ocheyedan, who was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Dorr and his son, Alexander, were denied gun permits after being engaged in extensive First Amendment activity -- protesting, passing out leaflets and writing letters to the editor -- the opinion notes.

“The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.

Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased “justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right."

The elder Dorr had been issued a concealed weapons permit from the late 1990s to 2005. But his July 7, 2007, application for a permit was denied. His son’s was denied a year later, when he was 18 years old.

Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, “concern from public. Don’t trust him.” The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.

Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as “a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,” Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.”

The ruling continued, “Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.”

And, Bennett said, “In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation ...

"In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views."

However, Bennett’s decision did not favor Dorr’s son, who was 18 years old when he applied for the carry permit, and is 20 now. Bennett noted that sheriffs have the discretion to withhold permits from anyone under majority age.

Bennett required Weber take a class that must be a college-level course on the United States Constitution, “including -- at least in part -- a discussion of the First Amendment.” And Bennet said, Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Upon completion of the class, Weber must also file anan affidavit with the clerk of court showing successful completion with a passing grade.

A request left with the dispatcher at the Osceola County law enforcement center, requesting a return call for comment from Sheriff Weber, was not returned, Wednesday night.

[John Taylor]

Sheriff revokes license of gun owner and son for writing letter to the editor critical of sheriff
Published on 07-10-2010 Email To Friend Print Version
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Source: Sioux City Journal

PRIMGHAR, Iowa -- U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett has ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment.

A request left with the dispatcher at the Osceola County law enforcement center, requesting a return call for comment from Sheriff Weber, was not returned, Wednesday night.

Best post I've read in awhile!

[AuH2O]

Paul was Ron Paul 2008 Iowa Field Coordinator.

[LibForestPaul]

So one statist told another statist to jump how high?

[John Taylor]

So one statist told another statist to jump how high?

The judge is a statist? How do you know this? He is BOUND by law to uphold the constitution and the legal precedent in accordance with it.

Ron Paul is a member of the U.S. government, is he a statist?

Judge Napolitano was a judge on NJ's high court... is he a statist?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

He is BOUND by law to uphold the constitution and the legal precedent in accordance with it.

What a great deal. Bound by law and you get to be a member of a special union that decides what law is.

I thought you meant bound by something lawful like a bond against oath but I cleared up my misreading of it on the second pass. Bound by law. Check!

[John Taylor]

What a great deal. Bound by law and you get to be a member of a special union that decides what law is.

I thought you meant bound by something lawful like a bond against oath but I cleared up my misreading of it on the second pass. Bound by law. Check!

A special union? You mean the judicial branch of the government of the state of Iowa, or of the United States?

Bond against oath? What the hell are you talking about? Those are utterly defunct.

[John Taylor]

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.

Again, this is utterly false. The attorneys among the founders were indeed members of the bar in their respective states.

[Pericles]

So one statist told another statist to jump how high?
As opposed to it is OK for a state to violate rights, but not the Feds?

[John Taylor]

As opposed to it is OK for a state to violate rights, but not the Feds?

It is not "OK" for either one to do it, BUT, the remedy for breaches by the federal government is different than the remedy available for abuses by state governments.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Again, this is utterly false. The attorneys among the founders were indeed members of the bar in their respective states.

If it is utterly false as you are claiming just post a copy of law licenses for the founding fathers and settle the matter. How about you start with just one law license for a signor. Shouldn't be too hard to dig up a public record like that.

[John Taylor]

If it is utterly false as you are claiming just post a copy of law licenses for the founding fathers and settle the matter. How about you start with just one law license for a signor. Shouldn't be too hard to dig up a public record like that.

A public record? You want me to travel to Richmond and Williamsburg and dig up the copies of Patrick Henry's bar admission? He was admitted to the bar after failing the first 2 of 5 individual examinations... with a majority being required for admission.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/henry.htm

"Patrick Henry
Virginia House of Burgesses
Born: May 29, 1736
Birthplace: Hanover County, Virginia
Education: (Lawyer, Politician)
Work: Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1765; Admitted to the Bar of the General Court in Virginia, 1769; Elected to the Continental Congress, 1774; Virginia Militia Leader, 1775; Governor of Virginia, 1776-1778, 1784."

http://www.nndb.com/people/916/000027835/

"[Henry] was admitted to the bar at the age of twenty-four, on condition that he spend more time in study before beginning to practise. He rapidly acquired a considerable practice, his fee books showing that for the first three years he charged fees in 1185 cases."

http://www.historycentral.com/bio/RevoltBIOS/HenryPartick.html

"He was admitted to the bar in Williamsburg, Virginia. Henry was an active attorney throughout his political involvement with the revolution, unlike many of his political colleagues, whose legal practices were only tangential to their main efforts."

FINALLY, William Wirt's definitive three volume work on Henry, one I urge you read.

http://www.archive.org/stream/pathenrylife01henrrich#page/n5/mode/2up

http://books.google.com/books?id=yx5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA645&dq=Patrick+Henry%3B+life,+correspondence+and+speec hes,+Volume+1&hl=en&ei=PvA7TNi1PIn2tgOVp8XaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=eB5CAAAAIAAJ&dq=Patrick+henry+admitted+to+the+bar&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=MO87TIiSBorUtQPF9vTaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[John Taylor]

If it is utterly false as you are claiming just post a copy of law licenses for the founding fathers and settle the matter. How about you start with just one law license for a signor. Shouldn't be too hard to dig up a public record like that.

35 of the 74 members of the constitutional convention were attorneys admitted to the bars in their respective states/colonies. In fact, admitted attorneys constituted a PLURALITY of the total membership of the constitutional convention, and held a majority of those who actually attended the convention.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

35 of the 74 members of the constitutional convention were attorneys admitted to the bars in their respective states/colonies. In fact, admitted attorneys constituted a PLURALITY of the total membership of the constitutional convention, and held a majority of those who actually attended the convention.

I want to see an actual law license because that is what you are claiming is false. I don't know why you keep bringing up admission to the bar. Is admission to a lawyer union a license?

I am looking for an actual license.... like this one... says license right on it:
http://realwitness.com/images/License.jpg

Or this one that says license:
http://www.florida-criminal-lawyer-blog.com/435297730_2c29cbf2e3.jpg

Or this one:
http://www.dentistplace.com/images/Fl_State_Bd_Of_Dentistry_Certificate-600.jpg

Or this one:
http://www.questconstruction.com/images-docs/flgc-license.jpg

Or this one:
http://www.familyunity.com/images/lic.jpg

Or this one:
http://legallyarmed.com/images/fl_permit.JPG

Or this one:
http://www.arrowsmitheye.com/License/Tennessee-Medical-License-July-16-1974.jpg

you know... a law license... surely you can produce one law license or lawyer license to substantiate your claim...

[payme_rick]

who cares... a county judge just ruled against his sheriff in favor of a citizen's rights... some good news in a string of bad news involving law enforecment etc... is great news

[Slutter McGee]

who cares... a county judge just ruled against his sheriff in favor of a citizen's rights... some good news in a string of bad news involving law enforecment etc... is great news

YES, but the Judge, by upholding the legitimate the rights of the citizens, has betrayed liberty....because he is not an anarchist or something like that.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[fisharmor]

YES, but the Judge, by upholding the legitimate the rights of the citizens, has betrayed liberty....because he is not an anarchist or something like that.

No, the point that you're missing is that the existence of the license is in itself anti-liberty.

People do not have a right to obtain a license from their home state to carry firearms.
People have a right to carry firearms.
Period, full stop, end of sentence.

The judge very much is anti-liberty in that, having the power to declare what is and is not law, he has the power to toss out the whole licensing scheme altogether.
He chooses not to for political reasons.
He is not our friend.

[tangent4ronpaul]

FAR OUT!

However, I don't think the sheriff is the only one that needs to go back to school...


Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased “justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right."

I wonder how this case would have gone if he was denied based on being on a no-fly list... :rolleyes:

-t

[Krugerrand]

FAR OUT!

However, I don't think the sheriff is the only one that needs to go back to school...



I wonder how this case would have gone if he was denied based on being on a no-fly list... :rolleyes:

-t

I wonder if the case got him onto a no fly list.

[Slutter McGee]

The judge very much is anti-liberty in that, having the power to declare what is and is not law, he has the power to toss out the whole licensing scheme altogether.
He chooses not to for political reasons.
He is not our friend.

The challenge was not validity of the law itself. The judge had no business ruling on the licensing of fire-arms. The subject of the challenge far more concerned the first amendment and the fourteenth than the second.

Ironically, you want the judge to engage in a gross abuse of power. So he can abuse his power and "throw out a law"....you really have no idea how laws work apparently...and he is overstepping his bounds. Or he can be constrained in his power, and protect the citizen, and you are mad because he didn't abuse his power.

That is seriously the most ridiculous thing I have heard on here.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Krugerrand]

That is seriously the most ridiculous thing I have heard on here.

Really?

[John Taylor]

I want to see an actual law license because that is what you are claiming is false. I don't know why you keep bringing up admission to the bar. Is admission to a lawyer union a license?

I am looking for an actual license.... like this one... says license right on it:

you know... a law license... surely you can produce one law license or lawyer license to substantiate your claim...

Some states issue physicial documentation, others do not, but ALL require, and have since before the founding of the United States required, admission to the bar to practice law. You can read about how Idaho for instance admits attorneys here:

http://proliberty.com/observer//19980703.htm

I provided you evidence of Patrick Henry's sitting for a bar exam, and passing it... which you ignore in your quest to somehow use anachronistic, bad law, misconstrued case/statutory law, and outright fabrications to make your "sovereignty" assertions. There is NO legal way to place yourself out of the grasp of the state. Why the hell would the state, which lives off of the blood of taxpayers, allow such a loophole? There is no magic solution akin to the one you submit.

Your position will not lead to anything productive whatsoever. It is a pipe-dream.

Finally, for a great, introductory read on Virginia legal culture at the founding, consult F. Thornton Miller's book on jury/state judicial resistance to the Marshall Court and the construction of Virginia legal practice...

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMYea8s4AIcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=F+Thornton+Miller&source=bl&ots=aBNybU_cJ2&sig=UN4ihji1uJx1qqrGtCgjIc8BNXY&hl=en&ei=FZE8TJ_vOoj0swOi-cnaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=F%20Thornton%20Miller&f=false

[John Taylor]

Really?

I saw something about termites carrying thermite into the twin towers... that is slightly more patently absurd than the claims asserted in this thread. ;)

[Slutter McGee]

Really?

To be clear, I am talking about content rather than grammar, since I can not take the time to proofread for correct tense. (Edit: I mean I don't bother to proofread my own posts)

The ridiculousness of the argument stems from the no win situation you create. Let me rephrase, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read that appears to be based on intelligent thought. I certainly don't mean to compare you to arguments concerning reptilian lizards and Hitler worshiping morons, among much of the other crap posted occasionally.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[fisharmor]

To be clear, I am talking about content rather than grammar, since I can not take the time to proofread for correct tense.

The ridiculousness of the argument stems from the no win situation you create. Let me rephrase, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read that appears to be based on intelligent thought. I certainly don't mean to compare you to arguments concerning reptilian lizards and Hitler worshiping morons, among much of the other crap posted occasionally.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Ok, I get it. The first and fourteenth amendments are important. The second is not.

[John Taylor]

Ok, I get it. The first and fourteenth amendments are important. The second is not.

That's not what Slutter stated. In any event, judges are constrained by their judicial rules and by ethical considerations to confine their decision to the most strict, confined, and limited grounds possible to acheive the necessary result, so as to minimize appeals, costs to taxpayers, and frivolous litigation in the future.

In this case, the judge made the correct decision, and based it on the necessary legal and constitutional foundations. If the question could be answered with ONLY the first amendment, as opposed to BOTH the first AND the second, it should be, and was here, decided on the more narrow, first amendment grounds.

[Slutter McGee]

Ok, I get it. The first and fourteenth amendments are important. The second is not.

Great reading comprehension there.


The challenge was not validity of the law itself. The judge had no business ruling on the licensing of fire-arms. The subject of the challenge far more concerned the first amendment and the fourteenth than the second.

Lets look at it this way. Police do an illegal search of my home and find illegal firearms. My lawsuit attests that it was an illegal search of my home. Does the judge have any business throwing out gun control laws as well?

Absolutely not. It would set dangerous precedent, with the courts using any and everycase to rule on every whim they could desire.

I love the second amendment as much as everyone here. I understand the intent of the second amendment. I also understand the danger of unrestrained judicial power, even when that power seems to be in our favor.

The judge did the right thing

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Some states issue physicial documentation, others do not, but ALL require, and have since before the founding of the United States required, admission to the bar to practice law. You can read about how Idaho for instance admits attorneys here:

Can you simply just post a law or lawyer license please to back up your claim the argument is false?

This forum is more intelligent than all of your tip toeing around the issue suggesting joining a lawyer union is a license. There are no law licenses because if there was, the judicial monopoly cartel could not persecute everyone to a standard ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Now that doesn't mean people agree with any particular side. It just means this forum is not stupid. Let's skip past all of the blah, blah, blah. Either you have a law or lawyer license to back up your claim or you don't.



I provided you evidence of Patrick Henry's sitting for a bar exam, and passing it... which you ignore in your quest to somehow use anachronistic, bad law, misconstrued case/statutory law, and outright fabrications to make your "sovereignty" assertions. There is NO legal way to place yourself out of the grasp of the state. Why the hell would the state, which lives off of the blood of taxpayers, allow such a loophole? There is no magic solution akin to the one you submit.

Again, I don't care about private unions or associations. I am waiting for an occupation or subject matter license issued by a state.

Legal/illegal is irrelevant. This is straight up about justice and the lack of justice We The People presently endure. Government presently has the most people willing to use guns. The guns are either on your side or they aren't. Presently the guns are on your side of the argument. I am working for less guns on your side argument and more guns on my side argument.



Your position will not lead to anything productive whatsoever. It is a pipe-dream.

You are free to your overconfident belief the judicial branch will remain a government unto itself. Unfortunately for your position the judicial racket is pretty easy to explain which makes some good old Henry style arguments easy to spread like wildfire. Your position will eventually be greatly outnumbered.

Something is going to give. Either there will be competition and market forces in justice, ignorance of the law will be an excuse if law is a privileged occupation, or the judicial monopoly racket and cartel will be broken up into smaller cartels.


Strauser further explained that the "license" for an attorney was different than, for example, a hunting or fishing license, which was an actual paper license. Strauser told me to think of an attorney's license "as a state of being."

Quote from your link. If it can be illegal to perform the occupation of law because you are not in a "state of being" to understand law you are in a "state of being" where ignorance of the law is an excuse because everyone can't afford the cost to join a private lawyer union.




Finally, for a great, introductory read on Virginia legal culture at the founding, consult F. Thornton Miller's book on jury/state judicial resistance to the Marshall Court and the construction of Virginia legal practice...

This paragraph from a short white paper sums up colonial America enough for people to get the gist of history:


In the mid 1600's, Virginia struggled with the role of lawyers. Someone could call himself a lawyer even if he had little or no training. Perhaps an educated man would try to assist another. Often, parties would try to represent themselves. This lack of procedural and legal knowledge in the litigants led to disruption and confusion of the court. It was required by statute in 1643 that lawyers had to be licensed and sworn in by the court. Two years later the practice of law was declared illegal. Eleven years after that, the prohibition against lawyers was repealed. Problems in the court returned and two years later they were again forbidden to practice. In 1680, the first licensing act was passed, but that was repealed two years later. Much of this discontent arose from the lack of regulation because anyone could declare himself a lawyer. Finally, in 1715, all lawyers were required to be approved by the Governor and Council of State. An examination for admission was required for all Virginia lawyers except those who had graduated from the Inns of Court or had been admitted to practice by the General Court.

http://www.tjheritage.org/Law_and_Thomas_Jefferson.htm


Justice does not depend on procedures in order to be effective, consistent, impartial, or fair.

Unfortunately under the present judicial racket justice is none of the above and the oath to join the lawyer union pretty much articulates the conflict of allegiance:



"I do solemnly swear:

"I will support the Constitution of the United States 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 maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate 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 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 oppresed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

They do a great job upholding oaths of the sentences containing bold highlights. The other three might as well be omitted.

[heavenlyboy34]

A public record? You want me to travel to Richmond and Williamsburg and dig up the copies of Patrick Henry's bar admission? He was admitted to the bar after failing the first 2 of 5 individual examinations... with a majority being required for admission.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/henry.htm

"Patrick Henry
Virginia House of Burgesses
Born: May 29, 1736
Birthplace: Hanover County, Virginia
Education: (Lawyer, Politician)
Work: Elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, 1765; Admitted to the Bar of the General Court in Virginia, 1769; Elected to the Continental Congress, 1774; Virginia Militia Leader, 1775; Governor of Virginia, 1776-1778, 1784."

http://www.nndb.com/people/916/000027835/

"[Henry] was admitted to the bar at the age of twenty-four, on condition that he spend more time in study before beginning to practise. He rapidly acquired a considerable practice, his fee books showing that for the first three years he charged fees in 1185 cases."

http://www.historycentral.com/bio/RevoltBIOS/HenryPartick.html

"He was admitted to the bar in Williamsburg, Virginia. Henry was an active attorney throughout his political involvement with the revolution, unlike many of his political colleagues, whose legal practices were only tangential to their main efforts."

FINALLY, William Wirt's definitive three volume work on Henry, one I urge you read.

http://www.archive.org/stream/pathenrylife01henrrich#page/n5/mode/2up

http://books.google.com/books?id=yx5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA645&dq=Patrick+Henry%3B+life,+correspondence+and+speec hes,+Volume+1&hl=en&ei=PvA7TNi1PIn2tgOVp8XaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=eB5CAAAAIAAJ&dq=Patrick+henry+admitted+to+the+bar&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=MO87TIiSBorUtQPF9vTaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false


How Ironic that you pick Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, as an example. LOLZ!!!:D

[John Taylor]

How Ironic that you pick Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution, as an example. LOLZ!!!:D

Not ironic at all. Look at the individual for whom I am named, John Taylor of Caroline, the LEADER of the Anti-Federalists in Virginia. The Constitution granted far too much authority to the central government, and has failed in limiting the government it did create.

[John Taylor]

Can you simply just post a law or lawyer license please to back up your claim the argument is false?

As I stated, some states issue certificates of admission to the bar, and some do not. You can easily google images of several states which do issue them. Idaho for instance does not, and I posted an article describing their system.


This forum is more intelligent than all of your tip toeing around the issue suggesting joining a lawyer union is a license. There are no law licenses because if there was, the judicial monopoly cartel could not persecute everyone to a standard ignorance of the law is not an excuse..

WHAT? Ignorance of the law is no excuse is a truism used when CHARGING people for committing a crime, and has absolutely nothing to do with attorneys. All it is,... is the COMMON LAW statement of the law, that ignorance is not a defense. That's been around for over a thousand years in the common law. Sorry. Another epic fail.


Now that doesn't mean people agree with any particular side. It just means this forum is not stupid. Let's skip past all of the blah, blah, blah. Either you have a law or lawyer license to back up your claim or you don't..

In a federal union, each state determines for itself how to govern the practice of law. You'll have to investigate each state individually, as your blanket requests for information are not answerable or coherent.



Again, I don't care about private unions or associations. I am waiting for an occupation or subject matter license issued by a state..

I am talking about people who are examined, and who are thereupon admitted by the state supreme court of that state to the practice of law in that state.


Legal/illegal is irrelevant. This is straight up about justice and the lack of justice We The People presently endure. Government presently has the most people willing to use guns. The guns are either on your side or they aren't. Presently the guns are on your side of the argument. I am working for less guns on your side argument and more guns on my side argument..

This IS about justice, and WE THE PEOPLE will trump people like you who assert that you are not bound by the law of the land. We The People have the second amendment, and should avail themselves of it if and when your side attempts to subvert the rule of law.



You are free to your overconfident belief the judicial branch will remain a government unto itself. Unfortunately for your position the judicial racket is pretty easy to explain which makes some good old Henry style arguments easy to spread like wildfire. Your position will eventually be greatly outnumbered..

The judicial branch of any particular state is just that, the judicial branch. It is not a government onto itself, but is a portion of the state government. Patrick Henry was an attorney admitted to the state bar of Virginia. That IS A FACT.


Something is going to give. Either there will be competition and market forces in justice, ignorance of the law will be an excuse if law is a privileged occupation, or the judicial monopoly racket and cartel will be broken up into smaller cartels.

Ahhh, anarchy, it comes out... keep going...


Quote from your link. If it can be illegal to perform the occupation of law because you are not in a "state of being" to understand law you are in a "state of being" where ignorance of the law is an excuse because everyone can't afford the cost to join a private lawyer union.

You're quoting from the nutso "sovereignty" person in the article whose arguments were utterly rejected, as they aregue precisely the opposite of what Idaho maintains as their bar, a paperless bar membership. This individual is precisely why the states, the colonies, and England, maintained standards for the practice of law, to keep folks like you from murdering their clients.


Justice does not depend on procedures in order to be effective, consistent, impartial, or fair..

The common law vehemently disagrees with you, and so do I. Procedural due process is extremely important, almost as much as is substantive due process

[Slutter McGee]

Not ironic at all. Look at the individual for whom I am named, John Taylor of Caroline, the LEADER of the Anti-Federalists in Virginia. The Constitution granted far too much authority to the central government, and has failed in limiting the government it did create.

I honestly don't think that the constitution granted too much authority to the central government, but I would agree that it failed in limiting the government it did create. Without concrete clarification of the General Welfare and Commerace Clause, the door was opened for an enormous amount of abuse. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but thankfully, most but not all amendments to it have contributed to increased rather than decreased liberty. Still, I wish the writers, with their blatant distrust of central power, had used the forsight to see how their words could be manipulated.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[coastie]

I honestly don't think that the constitution granted too much authority to the central government, but I would agree that it failed in limiting the government it did create. Without concrete clarification of the General Welfare and Commerace Clause, the door was opened for an enormous amount of abuse. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but thankfully, most but not all amendments to it have contributed to increased rather than decreased liberty. Still, I wish the writers, with their blatant distrust of central power, had used the forsight to see how their words could be manipulated.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

The PEOPLE failed, not the constitution. It merely laid the groundwork, the PEOPLE didn't hold the .gov accountable, and never will.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

As I stated, some states issue certificates of admission to the bar, and some do not. You can easily google images of several states which do issue them. Idaho for instance does not, and I posted an article describing their system.

I did not make the claim something was false. The burden is not upon me to post a law or lawyer license when I claim the exact opposite.

Why do you continue to bring up joining lawyer unions? Joining a lawyer union is not an occupational or subject matter license issued by the executive branch enforcing legislated acts of state government.



WHAT? Ignorance of the law is no excuse is a truism used when CHARGING people for committing a crime, and has absolutely nothing to do with attorneys. All it is,... is the COMMON LAW statement of the law, that ignorance is not a defense. That's been around for over a thousand years in the common law. Sorry. Another epic fail.

Yup, the presumption has been around for a while and I bet most people don't think much of it during their government indoctrination. However we presently live in a society where it is illegal to perform the occupation of law. Occupation of law is presently a de facto privilege only entitled to people who join the lawyer union. All the rest of society not a member of the lawyer union is in a de facto "state of being" where they are unable to understand law otherwise they would be able to freely perform the occupation of law.

Maybe instead of universal health care we need universal law degrees so government can guarantee We The People will be in a non-ignorant "state of being".



In a federal union, each state determines for itself how to govern the practice of law. You'll have to investigate each state individually, as your blanket requests for information are not answerable or coherent.

Not much I have to investigate when you can't pony up a law or lawyer license from any state of the union.


I am talking about people who are examined, and who are thereupon admitted by the state supreme court of that state to the practice of law in that state.

Me too. I am talking about the legislative power vested in state legislatures. Only state legislatures can create privileges that require licensing for occupations or subject matter. Except the judicial racket which acts as a government unto itself using police power to enforce the common right occupation of law if you are not a member of the lawyer union.



This IS about justice, and WE THE PEOPLE will trump people like you who assert that you are not bound by the law of the land. We The People have the second amendment, and should avail themselves of it if and when your side attempts to subvert the rule of law.

We shall see. I think it is a pretty naive position to hold the system of justice will not evolve and be subject to market forces. I don't really even sweat it. Not only do certain voting minorities exist but people are too afraid to do anything about it. People demonstrating courage and overcoming fear exercising civil disobedience seem to be more on my side of the argument.


The judicial branch of any particular state is just that, the judicial branch. It is not a government onto itself, but is a portion of the state government.

The judicial branch was never intended to have de facto legislative or executive power.



Patrick Henry was an attorney admitted to the state bar of Virginia. That IS A FACT.

Who cares? Admission to a lawyer union in 1760 is not a license.

"This Virginia Bar was interestingly summed up by St. George Tucker in a letter to William Wirt in 1813:" (pages 85 & 86)
http://books.google.com/books?id=7GbD_J57LbQC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=Virginia+bar+in+1760&source=bl&ots=zH1ODkLrqU&sig=JN5IPQEAhADzwnrzsxpHZJtmunA&hl=en&ei=IuM8TJP1HIW8lQeX1uiFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Virginia%20bar%20in%201760&f=false



You're quoting from the nutso "sovereignty" person in the article whose arguments were utterly rejected, as they aregue precisely the opposite of what Idaho maintains as their bar, a paperless bar membership. This individual is precisely why the states, the colonies, and England, maintained standards for the practice of law, to keep folks like you from murdering their clients.

ROFLOL.

I quoted a quote of Annette Strauser in an article you linked.

Idaho State Bar and Idaho Law Foundation, Inc. Staff
Licensing/Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Annette Strauser Membership, Licensing, MCLE and Computer System Administrator astrauser@isb.idaho.gov
http://isb.idaho.gov/general/staff.html

If you are claiming the quote is inaccurate there is her email address and you can clear up any misquoting.



The common law vehemently disagrees with you, and so do I. Procedural due process is extremely important, almost as much as is substantive due process

A debate on procedure trumping facts and outcomes is not really relevant to this discussion, the judicial monopoly cartel that it is a government unto itself, contradictory oaths, or the illusion of certificates from lawyer unions acting as de facto licenses for an occupation or subject matter that is unlawful to license.

[John Taylor]

I did not make the claim something was false. The burden is not upon me to post a law or lawyer license when I claim the exact opposite..

You made a claim that attorneys need to produce a law license. I have no idea why, as I am admitted to several bars, with respective bar numbers, and my admission certificates don't make any mention of any license. Sorry, the burden is on you to demonstrate that a license is necessary.


Why do you continue to bring up joining lawyer unions? Joining a lawyer union is not an occupational or subject matter license issued by the executive branch enforcing legislated acts of state government.

Admissions to bars are governed by the JUDICIAL branch, NOT the executive or legislative branches.



Yup, the presumption has been around for a while and I bet most people don't think much of it during their government indoctrination. However we presently live in a society where it is illegal to perform the occupation of law. Occupation of law is presently a de facto privilege only entitled to people who join the lawyer union. All the rest of society not a member of the lawyer union is in a de facto "state of being" where they are unable to understand law otherwise they would be able to freely perform the occupation of law.

It is not illegal to "perform the occupation of law", whatever the hell that is... all one must do is prove themselves to be of good character and legal ability, and they will be admitted to practice law. The fees associated with bar membership go to fund indigent law services for those who cannot afford representation in civil legal matters.


Maybe instead of universal health care we need universal law degrees so government can guarantee We The People will be in a non-ignorant "state of being".

Admission to the bar has NEVER been open to laymen in the entire history of the common law.


Not much I have to investigate when you can't pony up a law or lawyer license from any state of the union.

Where have I ever argued that attorneys get licenses? I haven't. In some states, their admission certificate states that they are now licensed, but in others, like mine of Arizona, they do not say anything about any license whatsoever.

http://susanleachsnyder.com/Genealogy/Graphics/5CharlesAlbertLeach/SupremeCourtOfOhio.jpg

http://www.salaslaw.me/SALASLAW/CV_files/DSC_0137.jpg

http://www.salaslaw.me/SALASLAW/CV_files/USCA1st.jpg

Be this all as it may be, here's a LAW LICENSE from Illinois....
http://www.fnrlaw.com/Images/ILLINOIS-Law-License.jpg

Again, staes can issue licenses if they wish, or they can continue to do as most have done since before the founding, admit attorneys to the bar.


Me too. I am talking about the legislative power vested in state legislatures. Only state legislatures can create privileges that require licensing for occupations or subject matter. Except the judicial racket which acts as a government unto itself using police power to enforce the common right occupation of law if you are not a member of the lawyer union.

Actually, it is state JUDICIARIES which establish the rules pertaining to the admission, regulation and practice of law, not the state legislative branch.

"common right occupation"????? What are you in, the 17th century? That language hasn't been used in over a century.



We shall see. I think it is a pretty naive position to hold the system of justice will not evolve and be subject to market forces. I don't really even sweat it. Not only do certain voting minorities exist but people are too afraid to do anything about it. People demonstrating courage and overcoming fear exercising civil disobedience seem to be more on my side of the argument.

The justice system does evolve. It's call the common law for a reason... it evolves.



The judicial branch was never intended to have de facto legislative or executive power.

It doesn't.


Who cares? Admission to a lawyer union in 1760 is not a license..

It is just as much as my admission to the bar of Arizona is a license. I have the same position today in Arizona as Patrick Henry held in Virginia in 1760.


"This Virginia Bar was interestingly summed up by St. George Tucker in a letter to William Wirt in 1813:" (pages 85 & 86)
http://books.google.com/books?id=7GbD_J57LbQC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=Virginia+bar+in+1760&source=bl&ots=zH1ODkLrqU&sig=JN5IPQEAhADzwnrzsxpHZJtmunA&hl=en&ei=IuM8TJP1HIW8lQeX1uiFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Virginia%20bar%20in%201760&f=false .

And accurately as well!!!




I quoted a quote of Annette Strauser in an article you linked.

Idaho State Bar and Idaho Law Foundation, Inc. Staff
Licensing/Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Annette Strauser Membership, Licensing, MCLE and Computer System Administrator astrauser@isb.idaho.gov
http://isb.idaho.gov/general/staff.html

If you are claiming the quote is inaccurate there is her email address and you can clear up any misquoting.

I'm not claiming her statement is inaccurate in any way. She stated that the attorneys involved WERE properly admitted and active members of the bar of Idaho. You are representing the incoherent contradictory arguments of this "sovereignty" individual as being Ms. Annette Strausers. Essentially, what you are doing is misconstruing her statement to attempt to buttress your incoherent argument.


A debate on procedure trumping facts and outcomes is not really relevant to this discussion, the judicial monopoly cartel that it is a government unto itself, contradictory oaths, or the illusion of certificates from lawyer unions acting as de facto licenses for an occupation or subject matter that is unlawful to license.

Contradictory oaths? WTF? Illusion of admission certificates? Really? I have mine quite physicially on the wall of my office directly in front of me as I type. Judicial monopoly? Yes, we live under various shades of republican forms of government, and the government is given a monopoly over a good many spheres of action... sorry to burst your anarchist bubble, but that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Your latching onto something you believe to allow you to escape the legal system won't avail you. It isn't grounded in law, logic, or reason, and it is utterly unsubstantiated by the historical record or the common law.

Sorry, another EPIC FAIL.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Your reply is just appalling. This conversation started because of your assertion here objecting to the statement in my signature:


Bullshit, states had bars then, just as states have bars today. Patrick Henry was admitted to the VA bar, and practicing attorneys were members of bars all throughout the states in 1776, and in 1787.

You have also repeated similar in two other threads furthering your objection claiming my signature is false.


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.


Again, this is utterly false. The attorneys among the founders were indeed members of the bar in their respective states.


Again, this is utterly false. The attorneys among the founders were indeed members of the bar in their respective states.

And here is my response to your claim it is false:

If it is utterly false as you are claiming just post a copy of law licenses for the founding fathers and settle the matter. How about you start with just one law license for a signor. Shouldn't be too hard to dig up a public record like that.

I started this thread for the discussion and you never answered the opening question:

Does the Bar Association issue licenses to practice law?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252478

Please post a law or lawyer license or please stop ranting over bullshit claims you can't back up.


You made a claim that attorneys need to produce a law license.

I state what is in my signature. You claim it is false. If the founding fathers had law licenses just post a law license from any state.



I have no idea why, as I am admitted to several bars, with respective bar numbers, and my admission certificates don't make any mention of any license. Sorry, the burden is on you to demonstrate that a license is necessary.

So you admit no Certificate to join the lawyer union makes no mention of any license. Does that surprise you considering it is a certificate to join a lawyer union and that certificate is not issued under legislative authority to license a privileged occupation or subject matter? Sheesh... this is not a rocket science issue. I have covered the matter quite well.


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



Admissions to bars are governed by the JUDICIAL branch, NOT the executive or legislative branches.

This is something else you keep repeating. I have never claimed otherwise.

In addition to several other arguments I have articulated about the bar, many bars are private unions. Why would any branch of government have anything to do with admissions to a private union?



It is not illegal to "perform the occupation of law", whatever the hell that is...

Yes whatever the hell that is. So what is it? And why would it be anything other than what it plainly means?



all one must do is prove themselves to be of good character and legal ability, and they will be admitted to practice law.

You mean admitted to the lawyer union.



The fees associated with bar membership go to fund indigent law services for those who cannot afford representation in civil legal matters.

That is because of the oaths to join the lawyer union. I already posted the oath.



Admission to the bar has NEVER been open to laymen in the entire history of the common law.

Of course not. Bringing this up you only risk opening another can here. What is acceptable discrimination. Is the bar a public or private lawyer union?



Where have I ever argued that attorneys get licenses? I haven't.

:eek::rolleyes:

How do you seriously expect me to respond to that?
Does this conversation need a mediator?



In some states, their admission certificate states that they are now licensed, but in others, like mine of Arizona, they do not say anything about any license whatsoever.

That is because joining a lawyer union is not obtaining a license.



http://susanleachsnyder.com/Genealogy/Graphics/5CharlesAlbertLeach/SupremeCourtOfOhio.jpg

http://www.salaslaw.me/SALASLAW/CV_files/DSC_0137.jpg

http://www.salaslaw.me/SALASLAW/CV_files/USCA1st.jpg

Be this all as it may be, here's a LAW LICENSE from Illinois....
http://www.fnrlaw.com/Images/ILLINOIS-Law-License.jpg

Again, staes can issue licenses if they wish, or they can continue to do as most have done since before the founding, admit attorneys to the bar.

Review all of the licenses and post #14 of this thread. None of your links contain license numbers. All of the links you posted are certificates not licenses.



Actually, it is state JUDICIARIES which establish the rules pertaining to the admission, regulation and practice of law, not the state legislative branch.

Again you keep repeating this. How about a new poll?

POLL: What branch of government has authority to create occupational or subject matter privileges that can be enforced by the executive branch?

OPTION 1: Legislative
OPTION 2: Judicial

I don't think your position is going to be in the majority.



"common right occupation"????? What are you in, the 17th century? That language hasn't been used in over a century.

Are you suggesting the courts are in error to claim law is a common right and the standard ignorance of the law is not an excuse needs to be changed?



The justice system does evolve. It's call the common law for a reason... it evolves.



It doesn't.

Are you claiming the judiciary racket doesn't persecute people performing the occupation of law using police power if they are not a member of the lawyer union?

Can you post the state statue that makes it illegal to perform the occupation of law?



It is just as much as my admission to the bar of Arizona is a license. I have the same position today in Arizona as Patrick Henry held in Virginia in 1760.

What is your license number?


And accurately as well!!!

Did it mention licensing?



I'm not claiming her statement is inaccurate in any way.

What is the problem then? I only quoted her quote regarding "state of being"?



She stated that the attorneys involved WERE properly admitted and active members of the bar of Idaho. You are representing the incoherent contradictory arguments of this "sovereignty" individual as being Ms. Annette Strausers. Essentially, what you are doing is misconstruing her statement to attempt to buttress your incoherent argument.

The only thing I quoted from the article YOU linked was a direct quote from Annette Strausers. I quoted nothing else from the article.


Sorry, another EPIC FAIL.

:rolleyes:

[Chieppa1]

"Admission to the bar has NEVER been open to laymen in the entire history of the common law. "

I think that is the point he is trying to make......sounds like a elite, closed group to me.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"Admission to the bar has NEVER been open to laymen in the entire history of the common law. "

I think that is the point he is trying to make......sounds like a elite, closed group to me.

That is fine if that is his point. I rebut because if he wants to continue to claim my statement is false he needs to pony up a law or lawyer license to back up his claim.

[Chieppa1]

That is fine if that is his point. I rebut because if he wants to continue to claim my statement is false he needs to pony up a law or lawyer license to back up his claim.

I 100% agree with your point. Its a cartel. Doesn't matter if its "always has been".

[BlackTerrel]

“The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr,” Bennett wrote in his ruling.

I like this judge.

[aGameOfThrones]

Bump. I want to see a law license. :cool:

[Reason]

pwned

[tnvoter]

No, the point that you're missing is that the existence of the license is in itself anti-liberty.

People do not have a right to obtain a license from their home state to carry firearms.
People have a right to carry firearms.
Period, full stop, end of sentence.

The judge very much is anti-liberty in that, having the power to declare what is and is not law, he has the power to toss out the whole licensing scheme altogether.
He chooses not to for political reasons.
He is not our friend.

Good explanation.

However this is still good news because:

It's at least a baby step in a positive direction, as opposed to being in the other direction.

[John Taylor]

Bump. I want to see a law license. :cool:

http://www.fnrlaw.com/Images/ILLINOIS-Law-License.jpg

There you go. Try a google search instead of buying into some ludicrous conspiracy theory next time.

[John Taylor]

That is fine if that is his point. I rebut because if he wants to continue to claim my statement is false he needs to pony up a law or lawyer license to back up his claim.

Every solitary attorney who is admitted to a bar has a bar admission number. He can give you his respective number, or you can search for them all at the respective bar associations or from the individual state's supreme court.

http://www.fnrlaw.com/Images/ILLINOIS-Law-License.jpg

There's a law license. Each state issues an admission to the state's bar, some labeling it a license, some an admission certificate.

[John Taylor]

I 100% agree with your point. Its a cartel. Doesn't matter if its "always has been".

I have never denied that the profession of law is restricted, as the practice of medicine is, to those who meet a certain "floor " of ability. All I have suggested is that Mr. Live_Free_OR_Die's position that this is some recent conspiracy is ludicrous. The founders had a great many attorneys among them, and they too were admitted to their respective bars, and they too were on a list, held by the courts in their states, which listed the attorneys who were able to practice and argue law before them. Mr. Live_Free_Or_Die wishes to use some "loophole" he believes he has discovered in the law to evade being held responsible to and by the law. I have news for him, the state is that fictitious entity which seeks to live at the expense of everyone else, and it will not create loopholes which it will not almost immediately close. You sovereignty guys cite case law from a hundred years ago, or some treaty with some tribe from 1798, when this law is entirely defunct. All you do by filing these 68 page motions is tie up a mass of private attorneys hired to specially defend the various states, with researching through this law to determine how much of it stands for what it is said it stands for, and how much actually stands for the opposite proposition (most of it usually does). In essence, what you do only ends up costing you, when you will lose in court, and costing the taxpayers of the state, whom you apparently have no regard for.