Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[SLL] Local Rules of Court: USDC/EDCA and USDC/CDCA

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... Eastern District of California and USDC, Central District of California [I did not look any further], any attorney who wants to practice in either of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >  The 2004 bound edition of USDC Rules of Court indicates that for both USDC,
      Eastern District of California and USDC, Central District of California [I did
      not look any further], any "attorney" who wants to "practice" in either of
      those "courts" MUST be an active member of The State Bar of California [this
      MIGHT be a good way to "remove" one's opposition by affidavit quoting the
      appropriate Rule].
       
      We covered that question quite thoroughly here:
       
       
      [excerpt]

      Moreover, having failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that they have indorsed the prescribed oath, Ropers is now in violation of Local Rules 83‑180(a) (“signing the prescribed oath”) and 83‑180(d) (complying with Standards of Professional Conduct).
       
      If counsel for any named Defendants must insist on strict adherence to said Local Rules, it is an invited error for them to violate said Local Rules so stubbornly.
       
      Their failure to produce the requisite license to practice law, with oaths of office properly indorsed upon same, is conduct that degrades and impugns the integrity of this Court and interferes with the administration of justice in the instant case.
       
      ...
       
      It is rather hypocritical of Ropers to cite Local Rule 11-110 (Sanctions for Noncompliance with Rules), when they themselves are so blatantly in violation of the Standards for Professional Conduct as explained by Local Rule 83‑180(e).
       
      Appellant will not tolerate such an abusive double standard, here or anywhere else.
       
      ...
       
      It is also ironic that Ropers’ BRIEF cites Local Rule 83-183, which clearly states that a corporation or other entity may appear only by an attorney.  CMU has not appeared by an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California.
       
      ...
       
      The USDC had no discretion to overlook the absence of prescribed oaths, as required by Local Rule 83‑180(a), or the Standards of Professional Conduct imposed by Local Rule 83‑180(e).
       
      ...
       
      Admission to practice before the Eastern District of California is simply not possible, without the requisite license and oath.  Compare Local Rule 83‑180(a) (“by signing the prescribed oath and paying the prescribed fee”).
       
      ...
       
      Due process of law mandates that those exercising the judicial Power of the United States must also obey all pertinent laws.  See the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, in chief.
       
      Criminal conduct interferes with the administration of justice, and degrades or impugns the integrity of the Court.  Compare USDC Local Rule 83‑180(e) (Standards of Professional Conduct).
       
      Said Local Rule mandates compliance with the standards of professional conduct required of all members of the State Bar of California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California and decisions of any Court applicable thereto, and those standards have been adopted as standards of professional conduct in the USDC.

       
      [/excerpt
       
       
      However, you are assuming that attorneys and court personnel
      honor those Local Rules, and the above should make it
      abundantly clear to you that THEY DO NOT!
       
      And, we have already proven, multiple times, that certain
      Local Rules in Sacramento are blatantly unconstituitonal, e.g.
      COERCIVE REFERRAL of ALL Pro Per cases to a magistrate
      violates the Federal Magistrates Act ("FMA"):
       
      (reviews 25 YEARS of Ninth Circuit cases on the FMA)
       
      And, of course, the man in question could not claim to be
      a magistrate, since he never produced any of the credentials
      required of a federal magistrate, including also the same
      Certificate of Oath that is required of all Bar members
      (full-time magistrates must have been Bar members for 5 years).
       
       
       
      The general problem that we confronted head-on in this
      case was the usurpation of Legislative power by the USDC:
       
       
      (all defendants and their counsels fell silent in reply to the latter 2 pleadings,
      or they formally waived their clients' right to answer those 2 pleadings!)
       
       
      I think we did a quite thorough job of documenting that usurpation.
       
      These people are criminals.
       

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
      Federal Witness:  18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


      tthor <tthor.geo@...> wrote:
      Dear [Mr] Mitchell,

      If you are not already aware:

      The 2004 bound edition of USDC Rules of Court indicates that for both USDC,
      Eastern District of California and USDC, Central District of California [I did
      not look any further], any "attorney" who wants to "practice" in either of
      those "courts" MUST be an active member of The State Bar of California [this
      MIGHT be a good way to "remove" one's opposition by affidavit quoting the
      appropriate Rule].

      Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
       


      Discover Yahoo!
      Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.