There is no such thing as an Attorney License
to practice law. The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT held a long time
ago that The practice of Law CANNOT be licensed by any
state/State. This was so stated in a case named Schware v. Board
of Examiners,
353 U.S. 232 (1957) and is located for all to read at the
following pages in volume 353 U.S. pgs.238, 239 of the United States
Reports.
Here is a quote from that case: "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 or Equal Protection [353 U.S. 232, 239] Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. 5 Dent v. West Virginia,
129 U.S. 114 . Cf. Slochower v. Board of Education,
350 U.S. 551 ; Wieman v. Updegraff,
344 U.S. 183 . And see Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13. A State
can require high standards of qualification, 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. Douglas v. Noble,
261 U.S. 165 ; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 319-320. Cf. Nebbia
v. New York,
291 U.S. 502 . Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely
because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular church.
Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a 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.
Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356 ."
[Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957), emphasis added]
Another
case which bore this out was
Sims v. Ahrens,
271 S.W. 720 (1925). In this case the opinion of the court was that
Sims v. Ahrens,
271 S.W. 720 (1925). In this case the opinion of the court was that
"The practice of Law is an occupation of common right."
Where some confusion may start is when one doesn’t
understand that a state supreme court only issues a CERTIFICATE, and
that is not a license. All a certificate does is authorize one of those
dirt-bags to practice Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the state judicial
branch of government. [Please see NOTE 1 below
to see that there is no judicial branch of government as we have been
led to believe all our lives] A plain truth of fact is that Attorneys
are ‘foreign agents’, the same as Federal Agents from the bowels of
hell known as WASHINGTON, DC, and can only represent wards of the court;
infants and persons of unsound mind. [The reader would be surprised
to find out that according to them, we’re all of unsound mind that is;
we’re considered incompetent to handle our own affairs.] [Please
see NOTE 2 below for a reference in a law dictionary
which explains this concept
Further, as a CERTIFICATE IS NOT A LICENSE then
it also gives no power to anyone to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor
to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM.
The state bar association is not a government
entity. The state bar ass…is "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION" and their "STATE
BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE either. All that card is – is a "UNION DUES
CARD" like the Actors Union, Painters Union, Electricians union etc.
Did the reader know that there is no other association, not even DOCTORS,
who issue their own license. All other licenses are issued by the state
or local municipal corporations . Any one can ask their state Attorney
General if the members of the BAR are licensed by the state or any other
governmental agency. The reader will find out in short order that the
state doesn’t issue licenses for Attorney’s and that said attorneys
are NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.
Therefore by reason logic and common sense we
can arrive a the determination that the ‘state bar ass… is; an unconstitutional
monopoly, and thus an ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. Since
the majority, if not all of government offices are filled with Attorneys
there is a definite violation of the separation of powers clause of
a constitutional government.
Attorneys are nothing less than ‘foreign agents’
on our land as they are foreign to a constitutional government. They
have NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial,
or Executive branches of a constitutional government, no matter if the
so called people vote for them. It is against a Republican form of constitutional
government law for them to even attempt to ‘run for office’ (sic). Of
course this would include all judges as well as members of the other
branches of a constitutional government
NOTE 1:
In a Municipal Corporation, which is what all states (once called union
States) are today. In Municipal Corporation Law there is no judicial
branch. The judges, which we see today and, which we’ve seen all our
lives, are administrative law judges appointed by the CEO of the Executive
branch. ]. Some other time be an offer my conclusions, including the
references which I used to make said conclusion. A little hint: If one
could just understand how a W-4, which is of no lawful effect after
1 year, has its continued effect on someone who does not disclaim it’s
effect but instead allows the effect to continue for as long as that
person is employed with the Federal employer he filed it with. The relate
that same effect to the effect that the Birth Certificate has to one’s
continued effect of being incompetent to handle your own affairs – even
if you’re 67 years old like this old goat]
NOTE 2:
SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.
Writers note: We are all a product
of our past experiences and teachings and what those experiences and
teachings, whether written or spoken word, have led us to be. With that
said much of what I read and write today is a product of some very influential
people who have been in my life in recent months and years. Jack Yost,
Ken Evans, Rice McLeod, Harmon L. Taylor, Bill Janes, Big Al and Pat
Lynch are just a few and are not necessarily in written in order of
importance. The article which I have added to above is the product of
many another’s mind and research. By way of the many influences mentioned
herein and many more, that which I have done above might be called plagiarized.
If so than all writers are plagiarizers, for they all use someone else’s
thoughts, teachings, and writings at sometime or another. I humbly admit
that without input from those mentioned above I could not have written
what I have and firmly believe that these friends were instruments sent
to me by my Holy Father, The Ever-Living God. Thank you and Godspeed
No comments:
Post a Comment