top
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Government & Elections
Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law
by TRUTH TELLING
Sunday May 21st, 2017 3:49 PM
The following obscure cite from 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 9 reveals the deceit being perpetrated here:
"In view of the decision that the creation of public corporation by special acts is prohibited by state constitution, state bar act creating state bar corporation as public corporation has no validity and designation of state bar as 'public corporation' has no legal efficacy." [Bridgegroom v. State Bar, 550, P.2d 1089, 27 ArizApp. 47.]
Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law

Subject: Supreme Court cases supporting no license needed to practice law.

If you ever get attacked for practicing law without a license.

Reference Court Cases:

* Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

1. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings. Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v. Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)

2. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594). The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in Propria persona.

3. NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969). Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law."

4. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar (377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425. Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings.

5. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases

6. Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest...

7. Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) "If an infant or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem."

8. Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994) Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.

9. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.

10. Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign',"

11. Oklahoma is a "Right to Work" State! Bill SJR1! Its OK to practice God`s law with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first! "There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God" U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)

12. "The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two are not the same....

To complicate matters still, the California Secretary of State refuses to issue a "Certificate of Non filing," a five dollar ($5.00) fee, a standard form for any unregistered, non-filing public corporation. By claiming that the State Bar Corporation was created by legislative act, the Secretary of State can take the position that it lacks authority to issue the certificate, even though the State Bar Association actively touts itself to be a public corporation. In so doing the California Bar has effectively exempted itself from registration and shielded its books from public scrutiny. The following obscure cite from 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 9 reveals the deceit being perpetrated here:

"In view of the decision that the creation of public corporation by special acts is prohibited by state constitution, state bar act creating state bar corporation as public corporation has no validity and designation of state bar as 'public corporation' has no legal efficacy." [Bridgegroom v. State Bar, 550, P.2d 1089, 27 ArizApp. 47.]

To further interpret what this means: the State Bar of California enjoys the best of both worlds; an apparent agency of government^ enjoying the power and protection of the state, including exemption from taxation, while in fact a pirate institution without legal basis.
Thank you for this post, and I add.

There has been and again is talk of those in the American legal profession, allowing those members of the citizenry they deem, the opportunity to practice law. DO NO EVER BEGIN TO ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO PRETEND THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW ANY OF YOU TO PRACTICE LAW. A RIGHT YOU ALREADY HAVE. THEIR APPROVAL IS NOT NEEDED. THIS IS NO MORE THAN ANOTHER STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT.

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616
Many of us are fully awar at how the courts have and continue to fail in that duty. Below is a prime example.

In 1991, attorney Mark Savage published “Native Americans and the Constitution: The Original Understanding.” (American Indian Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 57.) In 1993 he published, “The Great Secret About Federal Indian Law—Two Hundred Years in Violation of the Constitution—And the Opinion the Supreme Court Should have Written to Reveal it.” (N.Y.U Review of Law Social Change, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 343)

Today ,now 200 plus years later, the onslaught continues. Thanks American legal system. It is so very easy to name at leat one of these stealthy encroachments daily for the next 50 years, and have plenty left over. That minus the stealthy encroachments that are happening today.

If you allow the American legal profession to BEGIN TO PRETEND IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OFFER TO YOU SOME RIGHTWHICH IT DOES HAVE, THE ONLY OUTCOME CAN BE MORE STEALTHY ENCROACHMENTS AS THE ONE MENTIONED ABOVE, LASTING HUNDREDS OF YEARS. THE ONLY ANSWER IS TO CONTINUE TO ORGANIZE IN GROUPS, STUDY, AND EXERCISE THE RIGHTS YOU KNOW YOU HAVE.

The only mantra to the American legal system must be, NEVER AGAIN, THE NEW JIM CROW MUST END, THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. And to the groups and people to whom this must apply, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE. KEEP ORGANIZING AND THANK YOU.