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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] License to practice law

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Mar 3 6:52 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 8 , Mar 5 8:53 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 8 , Mar 5 10:16 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 8 , Mar 5 12:09 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.