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

License to practice law

Expand Messages
  • The Handyman
    In my research I found the following: Graduate of the department of the University of Louisiana were required to obtain a license from the supreme court
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 3, 2008
      In my research I found the following:
      "Graduate of the department of the University of Louisiana were required to obtain a license from the supreme court before they were entitled to practice as attorneys at law in any court of the state.  R.S. 1870 &112 did not make their diploma the equivalent of a license, and they were liable under sec. 756 to the clerk of the supreme court for his fee of $10, for a certificate of admission.  An order of the supreme court, however, admitting one to practice in all the courts of the state, was equivalent to the required license.  In re Villere, 1881, 33 La.
      Ann. 998."
       
      AND;
      " since the right to practice law is limited to those licensed for that purpose, it is a specie of fraud which the state may punish for unlicensed persons to hold himself out as entitled to practice law.  STATE V. ROSBOROUGH, 1923, 152 LA. 945, 94 So. 858."
       
      AND;
      "The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right.  State v. Rosborough, 1923, 152 La. 945, 94 So. 858.
       
      In 1986 I was convicted of unauthorized practice of law and such  conviction was later reversed.  The reason given for the reversal was BS to conceal that they cannot charge a man with unauthorized practice of law because the right to practice law appears to be "limited to those licensed.."  Such right is not "natural or constitutional." Then pray tell me exactly what it is? It's a scam foisted upon us to maintain control over the ignorant and uninformed.  If I had the guts and time I'd start representing others in court with hopes of getting indicted again....and apply these holdings for another reversal.  I believe these holding can be used in all states under rights and priviledge clause and equal protection act.
       
       The statute used in Louisiana to convict on unauthorized practice of law is:

      R.S. 37:231A.  No natural person, who has not first been duly and regularly licensed [and] (conjunctive) admitted to practice law by the supreme court of this state, no corporation or voluntary association except a professional law corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 12 of the Revised Statutes, and no partnership or limited liability company except one formed for the practice of law and composed of such natural persons, corporations, voluntary associations, or limited liability companies, all of whom are duly and regularly licensed and admitted to the practice of law, shall: Practice law.”

      The statute does not mention "equivalent to the required license." It's sort of like money and a money equivalent; they are not the same.  Many things could be "equivalent"!  How about ability for one? I am told that in Canada one can practice law if the amount in controversy is under $2,000.00.

      “[Keep]in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation(or a charge) unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax( or charge)  is sought to be laid.” Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. V. McClain, 192 U.S. 397, 24 S.Ct. 376, 418, U.S. 1904

       

      If any see a way to use this that I am missing please jump in. I'm always open for advice.

       

       
        Robert Kaltenbach
      Constitutional and Monetary Consultant
      1334 Division Road
      Arnaudville, LA 70512
      337-754-7859   ebobie@...
      FREE  Animations for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
    • Frog Farmer
      ... I find it amazing that it took a court case to get supposedly-educated adults to realize that an order from the principal implies the permission that is a
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 3, 2008
        The Handyman wrote:

        > "Graduate of the department of the University of Louisiana were
        > required to obtain a license from the supreme court before they were
        > entitled to practice as attorneys at law in any court of the state...
        > An order of the
        > supreme court, however, admitting one to practice in all the courts of
        > the state, was equivalent to the required license. In re Villere,
        > 1881, 33 La. Ann. 998."

        I find it amazing that it took a court case to get supposedly-educated
        adults to realize that an order from the principal implies the
        permission that is a license.

        But then the other night I encountered another casino where all involved
        except me contended that it WAS a possibility that the Department of
        Homeland Security would choose as its #1 form of ID something that all
        these idiots said was "automatically invalid". None could offer any
        evidence supporting their "belief". So I ended up leaving before the
        threatened goons were called. I'm formulating a simple letter to send
        to all involved (with important "cc:s") that will put into their
        "permanent records" the fact that they deemed their own judgments more
        legitimate than those imposed by higher authority and statutes, not to
        mention constitutions, dictionaries and common sense and logical
        reasoning.

        > In 1986 I was convicted of unauthorized practice of law and such
        > conviction was later reversed. The reason given for the reversal was
        > BS to conceal that they cannot charge a man with unauthorized practice
        > of law because the right to practice law appears to be "limited to
        > those licensed.." Such right is not "natural or constitutional." Then
        > pray tell me exactly what it is? It's a scam foisted upon us to
        > maintain control over the ignorant and uninformed. If I had the guts
        > and time I'd start representing others in court with hopes of getting
        > indicted again....and apply these holdings for another reversal. I
        > believe these holding can be used in all states under rights and
        > priviledge clause and equal protection act.

        You want to get indicted so you can go through a bunch of crap to once
        again prove you are right??! I'd see that as a waste of time. How many
        people are you going to do this for? How many will care? I used to go
        to court to show people how it's done. Not one person EVER had time to
        read all of the paperwork in the case. So, you'll spend a lot of time
        to prove you were right all along. But you already know that, so who is
        worth the effort to prove it to now?

        > all of whom are duly and
        > regularly licensed and admitted to the practice of law, shall:
        > Practice law."

        Those words, "practice law" need definition.

        Representation and constitutional assistance of counsel are two
        different things. If I am providing the second thing, and accused of
        providing the first thing, whose problem is that? I will not then seek
        to justify doing the first thing as if my accusers were perceptually
        accurate. Instead I will focus on their ignorance that fails to admit
        the possibility that I am engaged in something that may be an entirely
        new concept for their myopic little world.

        Regards,

        FF
      • Michael Noonan
        ... In Illinois, and most likely every other state, the practice of law is defind as holding one s self out to be a licensed attorney, and/or one who charges a
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 5, 2008
          --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

          > The Handyman wrote:
          > The reason given for the reversal was BS to
          > conceal that they cannot charge a man with
          > unauthorized practice of law because the right to
          > practice law appears to be "limited to
          > those licensed.." Such right is not "natural or
          > constitutional." Then pray tell me exactly what it
          > is?

          In Illinois, and most likely every other state, the
          practice of law is defind as holding one's self out
          to be a licensed attorney, and/or one who charges a
          fee for giving legal advice.

          Anything else is mere "I'll huff and puff 'til you
          back down," from the judge. I was once threatened,
          actually twice, by two Illinois judges to be charged
          with the unlawful practice of law as I was assisting
          a friend in court.

          The first judge told the court reporter (when chancery
          still had court reporters) to "make a note and then
          contact the attorney general." Nothing further was
          done.

          In the second instance, a little wiser and savier, I
          told the judge to go ahead and charge me, if he thinks
          he can make it stick. He railed at me for the
          comment, (judicial ego in play), but nothing was ever
          done there, either.

          So, unless one is charging a fee and/or holding one's
          self to be a lawyer, it is non sequiter in results.
          Keep the focus simple.

          Cheers!

          mn




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Looking for last minute shopping deals?
          Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
        • Pro Se
          Here s another definition, perhaps we NON - LAWYERS need to use this BOOK. from BARRON s Legal Dictionary for NON-LAWYERS. page 245 JAILHOUSE LAWYER Inmate
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 5, 2008
            Here's another definition, perhaps we NON - LAWYERS
            need to use this BOOK.


            from BARRON's Legal Dictionary
            for NON-LAWYERS. page 245

            JAILHOUSE LAWYER

            Inmate though self study of law, assist fellow inmates
            in the preparation of appeals, but DOES NOT possess
            formal training. and is NOT licensed to practice law.
            Reliance on JAILHOUSE LAWYERS is often the ONLY means
            prisoners can be assured access to the courts...

            Thus the use...has been declared to be Constitutionally protected.

            the jailhouse lawyers manual is available
            here:
            Columbia Human Rights Law Review
            Attn: JLM Order
            435 W. 116th St.
            New York , NY   10027




            Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
          • The Handyman
            Michael Noonan In Illinois, and most likely every other state, the practice of law is defind as holding one s self out To be a licensed wrote: attorney, and/or
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 5, 2008
              Michael Noonan  
               
               
              In Illinois, and most likely every other state, the
              practice of law is defind as holding one's self out
              To be a licensed wrote: attorney, and/or one who charges a
              Fee for giving legal advice.

              Anything else is mere "I'll huff and puff 'til you
              Back down," from the judge.
               
               
               
              Charging a fee and accepting a donation are two different animals as is assisting with counsel and representation by attorney.  Today there are many places that provide forms and will fill them out for a fee.  None have been challenged to be practicing law that I know of. The only problem I have is sitting at the table and speaking when assisting another.  They will allow you to sit but when you speak the stuff hits the fan.  Only once was I required to leave the table.  I had 3 state criminal trials and had a man sit next to me for counsel at all.  Have never tried this in a civil case.   We discussed many things while the Judge patiently waited for our conference to end and for me to respond.  It actually got funny because the prosecutor kept saying he objected to my having this man to discuss what I would say next.   His objections were over rulled. At my trial I admitted I charge for typing and research but I never sign or filed anybody else's papers with the clerk.  I testified that I had no idea if the pleading were signed or filed. No issue was made of that fact. I was sentenced to 2 years at hard labor but not incarcerated. It was a jury trial.   5 years later I won my appeal. They knew I would win on appeal and that is why I was not incarcerated on that charge. 
               
               
               
               
               




               

               

              .

               
              FREE Emoticons for your email – by IncrediMail! Click Here!
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.