"There is no "license to practice law"!
November 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM
The practice of law is a common right, law is common to all..
Here's the proof!
https://youtu.be/vieooNH-SkE
The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right. (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943))
The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (1957))
Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962))
"A 'Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,
A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’ of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258
N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.
“All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985))
The Natural Law, as practiced by all men, and from which all fictions, lesser forms of law and governance are derived, is from the creator, and man's unalienable and inherent natural liberty rights (the Will), and not from government, which can create no right or law governing the liberty of man, existing only to protect those lawfully exercised natural liberty rights which existed separate and sovereign from it, before the creation of government by the power of this liberty.
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346), as “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489).
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966))
Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, void, and without effect in law. (Marburry vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803))
"All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772)).
The Supreme Court has warned:
"Because of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187),
"the general misconception among the public being that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes Law. THAT A statute is not a "law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
"a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not "a law,"" (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261)
These being defined by Black's Law Dictionary as rebuttable prima facie, or superficial, evidence of law, a facade, represented by 'public policy,' being color-able, or 'color of law,' being 'counterfeit or feigned' as defined.
"The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams
'Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings' (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),
'Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers may assist other members of the group [family, association, or class] achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "Unauthorized practice of law." ' (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).
"Each citizen acts as a 'Private Attorney General who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign' " (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).
"Except in certain situations not here pertinent, the court cannot force a competent defendant to be represented by an attorney." (People v. Mattson (1959), 51 Cal.2d 777, 778-789 [336 P.2d 937]; see Reynolds v. United States (1959, C.A. 9), 267 F.2d 235, 236; Duke v. United States (1958, C.A. 9), 255 F.2d 721, 724 [4, 5], cert. den. 357 U.S. 920 [78 S.Ct. 1361, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365].) [2, 3]
When defendant in this court requested termination of the appointment of his counsel we were "not required to demand that defendant, as a prerequisite to appearing in person, demonstrate either the acumen or the learning of a skilled lawyer" (People v. Linden (1959), 52 Cal.2d 1, 17 [3] [338 P.2d 397])
and, having competently elected to represent himself, defendant "assumes for all purposes connected with his case, and must be prepared to be treated as having, the qualifications and responsibilities concomitant with the role he has undertaken" (People v. Mattson (1959), supra, 51 Cal.2d 777, 794 [17]). People v. Harmon, 54 Cal.2d 9, 16 (1960)
No this does NOT mean that YOU PERSONALLY are a Sovereign, only that you stand in the Representative place of sovereign. Lets not get our terms confused with what we WANT them to be. I too would love to be KING, but the truth in Law states that is simply not the case.
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)
The “Private Attorney General” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he can advance a policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. ( 'Equal Access to Justice Act'; Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D. 720, 722)
"In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.” (United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806).
"any private citizen acting as Private Attorney General may bring suit against any public official in their private capacity under Rico for crimes against constitutionally protected natural liberty rights, often predicated upon mail and wire fraud, and allows average citizens acting as private attorneys generals to sue those organizations that commit such crimes as part of their private criminal enterprise for damages. There are over 60 federal statutes that encourage private enforcement by allowing prevailing plaintiffs to collect attorney's fees. The object of RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims "but to turn them into prosecutors," acting as "private attorneys generals," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity, and has the "further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate." (Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151; 3 Id., at 187),
https://www.facebook.com/notes/jose-pacheco/there-is-no-license-to-practice-law/588756601161746/?hc_location=ufi
Comments
Post a Comment