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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] California FTB

Expand Messages
  • pd
    You may want to look at your current home State s statutes or codes. In the early 1980 s California was trying to assess taxes on people who had moved from
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      You may want to look at your current home State's statutes or codes.  In the early 1980's California was trying to assess taxes on people who had moved from California to Nevada.  Nevada passed laws prohibiting California from this.  Many other states followed suit.  Yours may be one of them.  The second issue is that California, especially the FTB, has no authority and no jurisdiction over you unless and until you are within their territorial boundaries.  The third issue is that most States are farming out their collections to third parties that do not represent the State.  Instead, they are third party debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and have to be registered as a third party collection agency with your State regulatory agency.  A fourth issue may be that your current State does have a statute of limitations on collection of State revenue taxes (many do) and the efforts to collect a 25 year old claim can easily be taken as a fraudulent claim being done under color of law or under color of official right.  There should be all kinds of avenues of redress should you put your mind to recognizing them.  pd

      crl333mry <crl333mry@...> wrote:
      Greetings,

      Any info re; California FTB would be appreciated.

      They are attempting to collect a 1980 state tax bill.

      They claim there is no statute of Limitations.

      What is the best way to defeat FTB efforts against us.

      We do not live in California and our state does not allow

      garnishments.

      Thank you
      Carl







      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Jah Red
      i have these for the FTB on EWOT s i don t have a link for this stuff... [employer name and address as it appears on the EWOT order] FRANCHISE TAX BOARD P.O.
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        i have these for the FTB on EWOT's

        i don't have a link for this stuff...


        [employer name and address as it appears on the EWOT order]

        FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
        P.O. BOX 942867
        SACRAMENTO, CA 94267-0011

        [date]

        Re: Request For Sworn Statement or Court Order Pertaining to an
        Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes (Case Number ________ for tax
        year _____.


        To Whom It May Concern:

        We have received an Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes
        issued on [date] pertaining to the funds [employee or contractor name
        as appears on EWOT] receives from our firm as an [independent
        contractor or employee] requesting that we withhold money allegedly
        due to the Franchise Tax Board.
        [independent contractor or employee] has furnished us with a
        sworn affidavit that he/she is not liable for the taxes you claim
        that he/she owes. (Attached is a copy of his sworn affidavit that is
        an integral part of the request).

        To protect ourselves from a possible future lawsuit in which
        [independent contractor or employee] sues us for turning over his
        funds to a 3rd party without a Court Order and without any due
        process whatsoever, we are requesting you to furnish us with a
        contesting sworn statement that [independent contractor or employee]
        is in fact, "liable" for the taxes at issue and that you, in fact
        sent him a court order and/or writ of attachment for payment per the
        requirements stated in the California Code of Civil Procedures (cited
        below). In the alternative, you might furnish us with a court order
        directing us to turn over the funds to the Franchise Tax Board.


        Your alluding to 706.074 of the California Code of Civil
        Procedures is misplaced as it is defined in Code of Civil Procedures,
        Section 706.070(b) to be the amount which the
        "state has a tax lien as defined in Section 7162 of the Government
        Code…".
        Section 7126 of the Government Code defines a "state tax lien" to one
        created under various sections of the Fish and Game, Public
        Resources, Revenue and Taxation, of Unemployment Insurance Code.
        None of the code sections listed in 7162 refers to personal income
        tax, and thus, an Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes may not, under
        Section 706.074, be issued to collect personal income tax as you have
        erroneously stated in your papers.

        Further, California Code of Civil Procedures, Section 706.125 states
        in relevant part,
        "The earnings withholding order", [shall include ALL of the
        following:]…
        "(c) The court where the judgment was entered, and the name
        of the judgment creditor.
        (d) The date of issuance of the writ of execution to the
        county where the earnings
        withholding order is sought."

        All of the law must be followed and it seems that you are not doing
        this. We are also aware of the fact that since the State of
        California has adopted the Internal Revenue Code that per
        26 USC 6061 you are obligated to sign any and all correspondence
        related to tax matters that you send out – which you have not done in
        this case. My information from [independent contractor or employee]
        is that he has answered your various correspondences in the past, but
        has never heard back from you as to the questions he has asked and
        legal rebuttals he has made. Are you not aware of the Information
        Practices Act, and are you not aware that your non-responsiveness is
        considered non-compliance? It seems to us that perhaps there could
        be the possibility of litigation considered by [independent
        contractor or employee] regarding the various infractions that are
        seemingly evident.

        I am sure you can appreciate our position; in a legal sense,
        [independent contractor or employee] sworn affidavit takes precedence
        over your informal, computer generated, unsigned, and unofficial
        document (i.e. without legal standing via the violation of CCP
        706.125 cited above).

        Until such a time as we get all of the above documents from
        you, properly executed (signed by a Judge of competent jurisdiction),
        we will continue to honor our contract employment commitment with
        [independent contractor or employee]. We await your prompt and legal
        answers and forthcoming information that is not vague in nature,
        specifically as it relates to the law you mention in your Earnings
        Withholding Order for Taxes document.


        Thank you for your prompt response.



        ___________________________________________ Date:
        ________________
        [employer principal]




        [your name & address as it appears on EWOT]

        Franchise Tax Board
        P.O. Box 942867
        Sacramento, CA 94267-0011

        Re: Year 2000 – Case number 541158989


        To Whom It May Concern:

        The copy of the attached Earnings and Withholding Order for Taxes
        (EWOT) cannot be authorized for a personal income tax – an income tax
        which was repealed by the State of California in 1945 (court decision
        cited later in this letter – see page 3). The California Code of
        Commercial Procedures (CCP) 706.074 does not specifically state who
        an Earnings and Withholding Order for Taxes (EWOT) refers. Further,
        the Revenue and Taxation Code 18671 (which is directly connected to
        CCP 706.074 via 706.011 Definitions) does not refer to any personal
        income tax code.

        Additionally, you should note the following:
        "Code is not law – Self V. Rhey, Washington Supreme
        Court"
        "Individuals are not subject to any Code – Yick Wo v.
        Hopkins, 1886."

        I have filed all California tax returns for which I am liable, even
        though I know that the Revenue & Taxation Code (R&T Code) Sections do
        not apply to me (proof cited herein). I am by the very nature of the
        Revenue & Taxation code not liable. This letter simply affirms that
        fact and that my private sector remuneration for services by a
        private sector employer is clarified by the following:
        1) I have not received any payments made by the Unites States
        according to California Revenue and Taxation Code §18637, (formerly
        §18802), and Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1.6041-1(g),
        §1.6014-2, and §1.6041-3 in accordance with R&T Code §17024.5.
        2) I have not received any payments made by a State according to
        California R&T Code §18637 and 26CFR1.6041-1(g), §1.6014-2, and
        §1.6041-3 in accordance with R&T Code §17024.5.
        3) I am neither employed nor receive payments made by the State
        of California, or the states, or political subdivisions of other
        states, or the District of Columbia according to Title 22 California
        Code of Regulation (formerly the Administrative Code) §4320-1, et
        seq., California R&T Code §18662 (formerly 18805), §19002 (formerly
        18551.1) and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
        4) I am neither employed nor received payments made by the
        United States according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation
        (formerly Administrative Code) §4320-1, et seq., California R&T code
        §18662, §19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
        5) I am neither employed nor receive payments made in other
        states, political subdivisions of other states, or the District of
        Columbia according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation
        (formerly Administrative Code) §4320-1, et seq., California R&T code
        §18662, §19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.
        6) I am not entitled to exemptions, deductions and/or credits
        according to Title 22 California Code of Regulation (formerly
        Administrative Code) §4320-1 et seq., California R&T Code §18662,
        19002 and California Unemployment Insurance Code §13020.

        I understand that the issuance of an EWOT to collect an alleged
        personal income tax liability is an illegal and fraudulent attempt to
        collect a tax without any applicable and supporting law.

        You continue to quote the IRS, and have even adopted the Internal
        Revenue Code (IRC) as part of your operating tax procedures per the
        Revenue & Taxation Code:

        PART 10. PERSONAL INCOME TAX
        CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS ..... 17001-
        17039.1
        CHAPTER 2. IMPOSITION OF TAX .......................
        17041-17061
        CHAPTER 2.1. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ............... 17062-
        17063
        CHAPTER 2.6. SPECIAL TAX CREDIT
        CHAPTER 3. COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
        Article 1. Definition of Gross Income, Adjusted Gross
        Income, Taxable Income, etc. ...........
        17071-17078

        Additionally, the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) has made this perfectly
        clear in the Instructions for CA (540), which reads:
        "Due to California legislation enacted in 1997, California tax law
        conforms to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as of January 1, 1997."

        Since you have adopted the IRC (which I obey to the fullest), you
        have to recognize and conform to the entire IRC.

        If there is no Federal tax liability created, determined or assessed,
        there cannot be any liability that extends to the state of
        California. Additionally, the California Constitution does not have
        any law to enforce any income tax on its citizens apart from the IRC
        because it would violate your own R&T Code, the Federal IRC and the
        Federal Constitution.
        According to the IRS, we only need to obey REGULATIONS, and they must
        be LEGISLATIVE regulations (e.g. Code of Federal Regulations).

        You are attempting to collect a tax which is, (according to Treasury
        Regulations, the IRC, the Secretary of Treasury, various Senators,
        Congressmen, Commissions of the IRS, various IRS publications, the
        Supreme Court, and even you – all of whom have said is), a "voluntary
        tax… self-assessed." Our income tax system could not be based upon
        constraint, forcible obligation or direct police enforcement by the
        state, as it would then be unconstitutional.

        On line 13 of the 540 return it states:
        "Federal adjusted income from form 1040"
        Per the IRC, Form 1040 is not a legal form to be filled out by a U.S.
        citizen, but rather it is for non-resident alien individuals. It is
        the same for your form 540.


        You are in violation of 26USC6501 which states in relevant part:
        "The amount of any tax imposed by this title shall be
        assessed with 3 years."

        Further, you have not offered me a hearing as required by law.
        Any return I was legally required to file was valid and if I swear to
        anything different than what I have entered on my Federal return, I
        would be committing perjury.

        The case cites that you have quoted in reference to this issue do not
        carry any legal merit with a judge in the State courts as they are
        merely internal administrative decisions carried out by appointees
        and secondarily have NO direct bearing in substance on this case as I
        did not engage in any of the actions relevant to such cites. In
        contrast, I cite Supreme Court Cases which do have a direct bearing
        on this information as the Supreme Court is the only court of the
        land that has the authority to interpret the Constitution. These
        Supreme Court cases have NEVER been overturned.

        The "Personal Income Tax Act of 1935, Chapter 329, Pages 1090-1123"
        enacted the personal income tax in California – and was "REPEALED by
        Chapter 659, Statutes of California, 1943". This repeal reads in key
        part on page 2412:
        "Section 2, Section 50015 is added to the code to read:
        50015 – "The Personal Income Tax Act is repealed.
        Section 3.
        This Act shall take effect July, 1945."

        I will allow you to prove that there is a statutory law behind your
        R&T Codes as I know in researching these codes that there is NOT one
        thing in the California Constitution to allow you to tax citizens on
        their wages who are residents of the State of California as was put
        forth in the beginning of this letter.

        Revenue & Taxation Code §17041.5 states in relevant part,
        "Not withstanding any statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or
        decision, to the contrary, no city, county city, and county
        governmental subdivision, district, public and QUASI-public
        corporation, municipal corporation, whether unincorporated or not,
        shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon
        the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or non-
        resident. This section shall not be construed so as to prohibit the
        levy or collection of any otherwise authorized license tax upon a
        business measured by or according to gross receipts."
        The EWOT presented to me and my employer is defective on its face for
        the following reasons (among many others):
        CCP 706.125
        The earnings and withholding order shall include ALL of the
        following:
        (a) The name, address, and if known, the social security
        number of the judgment debtor.
        (b) The name and address of the employer to whom the order is
        directed.
        (c) The court where the judgment was entered, and the name of
        the judgment debtor.
        (d) The date of issuance of the writ of execution to the
        county where the earnings withholding order is sought.
        (e) The total amount required to satisfy the order on the
        date of issuance…


        Pursuant to CCP §706.072, and EWOT can only be issued under certain
        circumstances.

        706.72. (a) A "withholding order for taxes" is an earnings
        withholding order issued
        pursuant to this article to collect a state tax liability and
        shall be denoted as a withholding order for taxes on its face.
        (b) A withholding order for taxes may only be issued under
        one of
        the following circumstances:
        (1) The existence of the state tax liability appears on
        the face
        of the taxpayer's return, including a case where such tax
        liability
        is disclosed from the taxpayer's return after errors in
        mathematical
        computations in the return have been corrected.
        (2) The state tax liability has been assessed or
        determined as
        provided by statute AND the taxpayer had notice of the
        proposed
        assessment or determination AND had available an opportunity
        to have
        the proposed assessment or determination reviewed by
        appropriate
        administrative procedures. If the taxpayer makes a timely
        request
        for review of the assessment or determination, the state
        shall not
        issue a withholding order for taxes until the administrative
        review
        procedure is completed. If the taxpayer is given notice of
        the
        proposed assessment or determination but does not make a
        timely
        request for review, the state may issue a withholding order
        for
        taxes.
        (c) In any case where a state tax liability has been assessed
        or
        determined prior to July 1, 1983, and the state determines
        that the
        requirement of subdivision (b) may not have been satisfied,
        the state
        may send a "Notice of Proposed Issuance of Withholding Order
        for
        Taxes" to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address by
        first-class mail, postage prepaid. The notice shall advise
        the
        taxpayer that the taxpayer may have the assessment or
        determination
        reviewed by appropriate administrative procedures and state
        how such
        a review may be obtained. If the taxpayer is sent such a
        notice and
        requests such a review within 30 days from the date the
        notice was
        mailed to the taxpayer, the state shall provide appropriate
        administrative procedures for review of the assessment or
        determination and shall not issue the withholding order for
        taxes
        until the administrative review procedure is completed. If
        the
        taxpayer is sent such a notice and does not request such a
        review
        within 30 days from the date the notice was mailed to the
        taxpayer,
        the state may issue the withholding order for taxes.
        (d) A withholding order for taxes may be issued whether or
        not the
        state tax liability has been reduced to judgment.

        An EWOT may not be issued if a taxpayer has not had a review of the
        proposed assessment or determination (Administrative Assessment).

        It is clear from the above that any tax liability to the state
        accrues only AFTER and assessment has been made (whether
        mathematically related or an administrative assessment) from a FILED
        TAX RETURN. If an administrative assessment is involved,
        a "taxpayer" has the right to demand at a hearing:
        (i) A copy of all the supporting documents upon which the
        administrative assessment was based, relied upon by the Franchise Tax
        Board.
        (ii) A copy of verifications received by the Franchise Tax Board
        that the above information and assessment was correct.
        (iii) A copy of procedures, and/or procedures manuals utilized by
        the the Franchise Tax Board which explains the procedure and process
        implemented and used to verify a procedurally correct administrative
        assessment was applied.
        (iv) IF NO RETURN IS FILED, a copy of the delegation of authority
        order which delegated the authority to the person who SIGNED the
        assessment.

        Revenue & Taxation Code §18671 – Notice to withhold and transmit
        amounts due; effect of levy; amount required to be withheld.
        …
        (d) For purposes of this section, the term "payments" does
        not include earnings as defined in subdivision (a) of §706.011 of the
        Code of Civil Procedure…

        Code of Civil Procedures §706.011 - Definitions
        As used in this chapter:
        (a) "Earnings" means compensation payable by an employer to an
        employee for personal services performed by such employee, whether
        denominated as wages, salary, commissions, bonus or otherwise.

        The only EWOT recognized by the Courts is the form adopted by the
        California Judicial Council, 982.5(12) WHICH IS A COURT ORDER, not
        form FTB 2905ARCS ( REV 12-2001). See Government Code §68511. Also
        see Rule of Court 2011(B) which demands the proper form.
        You have not produced any legally enforceable document, or Court
        order signed by a Judge to prove that I owe any of the taxes you
        allege.

        An EWOT under CCP §706.074 may only be issued to collect a "state tax
        liability", which is defined in CCP §706.70(b) to be the amount for
        which the "state" has a tax lien as defined in §7162 of the
        Government Code. Section 7162 of the Government Code defines
        a "state tax lien" to be created under various sections of the Fish
        and Game, Public Recourses, Revenue and Taxation, or Unemployment
        Code. None of the code sections listed in §7162 refers to
        a "personal income tax" and that an EWOT may not, under §7162, be
        issued to collect personal income tax.



        The Franchise Tax Board

        You are put on notice regarding the lack of authority carried by the
        FTB in this matter via the following legal evidence regarding your
        non-governmental status:
        NO individual is taxable under West's Ann. Cal. R&T Codes, §18501 or
        §18505 until the FTB has formally adopted Regulations (codified in
        Title 18, Barclay's Official California Code of Regulations) PURSUANT
        TO West's Ann. Cal. R&T Code §19503, which would place said
        individual within a taxable class.
        FTB adoption of said regulations is supposed to be in conformity with
        the Administrative Procedures Act (West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code §11340,
        et seq.). To date, the FTB has only adopted regulations in relation
        to individuals who fall into the classes:
        "married couple" or "fiduciary".

        The Revenue & Taxation Code §17003 specifically states,
        "Franchise Tax Board" means the Franchise Tax Board described
        in Part 10, Division 3, Title 2, of the Government Code."
        This reference falls under §15700 of the Government Code, which
        specifically states,
        "There is in state government, IN THE AGRICULTURE AND
        SERVICES AGENCY, a Franchise Tax Board consisting of the State
        Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State
        Board of Equalization."

        Subsequent to this, the legislature unconstitutionally attempted to
        amend this section via §12800 and §12804 of the Government code which
        specifically says,
        "Whenever the term "Agriculture and Services Agency" appears
        in any law, it means the "State and Consumers Services Agency"
        (§12800).
        AND
        "The Agricultural and Services Agency is hereby renamed the
        State and Consumers Services Agency…" (§12804).
        Article IV, section 9 of the California Constitution strictly forbids
        this when it says,
        "A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section
        is re-enacted or amended…"
        Since §15700 has NEVER been re-enacted or amended, the reasonable
        inference to be drawn from this are:
        1) The FTB is still located in the lo-longer legally existent
        Agriculture and Services Agency (which means it is no longer in a
        part of the state government).
        AND/OR
        2) The FTB has not been properly or legally
        moved/relocated/reassigned to the State and Consumers Services Agency
        (which also means it is no longer part of the state government).

        I would suggest, for your own protection, that you and your attorney
        see the law for yourselves:
        http://caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/15700-15704.html
        http://caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/17001-17039.html

        Your actions evidenced by your EWOT document that you have submitted
        to me will have you personally prosecuted for criminal intent to
        extort money from me according to the constitution and the fraud
        statutes. The FTB is not a governmental office (although you
        continue to use the state seal of California illegally) therefore you
        will be required to hire your own attorney at your personal expense
        for fraud under the color of authority.

        If this letter is not satisfactory to you, I am requesting that an
        administrative hearing be held for the year 2000 according to my
        rights as a citizen, where we can discuss your violations of law, and
        the rest of the R&T codes, et al. Looking forward to such a meeting,
        there are many cases now in the courts against the FTB (a municipal
        corporation with no standing as a state government office) that give
        me the leverage to sue you in your personal capacity.

        You should note that there are other legal avenues that can be taken,
        such as in a court decision the FTB never mentions, Ballmer v. The
        FTB. Additionally, you may wish to stop quoting Tax Court cases as
        the Tax Court is NOT A COURT OF LAW and has consistently been
        overturned on appeal by the Federal Appellate Court. To attempt to
        threaten me with criminal action without any supporting law will
        expose you to the possibility of being criminally and civilly
        prosecuted under a myriad of sections, not the least of which is
        section 7214 & 7714 (and others).

        You are violating my constitutional rights by attempting to impose an
        income tax on me that is not evident in the code cites you quote in
        your EWOT document, nor present in the supporting statutes. You
        mistakenly and erroneously refer to tax LAWS, which are simply only
        CODE references.

        I am fully aware that the California personal income tax provisions
        (as put forward in your documentation) are unlawful. You are trying
        to perpetuate a lie through your correspondence. I am keeping your
        documents as evidence to your violations.

        Since you have not adhered to legal process, administrative process
        for notification, let alone followed the substance of the law, and
        since the substance of the R&T Codes delineate that I have followed
        the law (and you have not), I am demanding an immediate release of
        the Earnings Withholding Order for Taxes. If this demand is not
        immediately recognized and properly acted upon, I will be filing an
        action against you, as so many others are now doing.

        I will expect you to rebut this letter in its entirety, however, I
        will not accept anything akin to a form letter stating, "We do not
        respond to letters using the Constitution, religion [etc.] as a
        defense…", going on to cite cases that do not have any bearing on the
        facts presented here. Otherwise, you will be answering these and
        many other questions about your serial violations of the CCP, the R&T
        Codes, and the Constitution itself, in a lawsuit. Anyone else
        honoring your fraudulent documentation related to this EWOT will also
        be sued for fraud.

        This is a NOTICE AND DEMAND under the Universal Common Law Code.


        Sincerely,


        [your name here]




        some laws
      • CCDude
        RE: paying a deposit (for water bill). Does the keeper of a security deposit have to pay interest in Texas on that deposit while in their hands??? Is there
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          RE: paying a deposit (for water bill).

          Does the "keeper" of a security deposit have to pay interest in Texas on
          that deposit while in their hands??? Is there any law that covers this.

          Thank you,
          Bob Miller
        • Frog Farmer
          ... ...which they cleverly removed from their consttution, so it s really anybody s guess (would one call Rand McNally??) as to just what those territorial
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On Dec 1, 2005, at 4:55 PM, pd wrote:

            >   The second issue is that California, especially the FTB, has no
            > authority and no jurisdiction over you unless and until you are within
            > their territorial boundaries.

            ...which they cleverly removed from their consttution, so it's really
            anybody's guess (would one call Rand McNally??) as to just what those
            territorial boundaries might be. One would have to ask someone who
            would know the "official" answer...but then who would we turn to for
            that? Would you accept the word of a criminal impersonator? See
            California constitution Article XX, Section 3.

            Only an "officer" can speak for "the state" (with the exception of his
            licensed attorney - see Calif. Business & Professions Code Section
            6067.) So just WHO is this "FTB" that is supposedly harrassing
            people? Some people believe in ghosts, and some believe anything they
            are told. Who has actually checked it out and found a qualified
            officer (with the REQUIRED oath of office on file) with the same name
            as seen on the bottom of the threatening letters? I'm not in the habit
            of letting unlicensed attorneys into my court either.

            I'm not bothered by FTB, probably because I know that it's a "vacant
            office" staffed only by "employees" (slaves) whom any court would
            declare incompetent to testify as to what the law is or was, aside from
            the fact that I hold no state-created franchise. Even though we are
            all presumed to know the law, whenever I've had such an employee on the
            witness stand, and asked a pertinent question regarding specifics of
            the laws in question, the "judge" has always disallowed the question,
            based upon the fact that the employee is not qualified to answer it.

            I don't waste my time quibbling with mere paycheck anticipators.

            Hope this helps.

            FF
          • Jah Red
            You can t license the practice of Law!.. Lawyers are members of bar, like club of lawyers.. this is one thing about US Attorneys, they usally don t have a bar
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              You can't license the practice of Law!..

              Lawyers are members of bar, like club of lawyers..

              this is one thing about US Attorneys, they usally don't have a bar card
              for the state in which you live..

              But you can't license the practice of law..
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.