Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

Arrogant lawyer of illegal system blames it on the people who dont understand legal ethics page 13 http://www.scribd.com/doc/113882977/Spirit-Intent-Precedence-de-Jure-Constitution-or-Romans-13Gaming-the-System-de-Facto http://www.scribd.

com/doc/112431371/Would-a-Government-Appointed-Court-of-CompetentJurisdiction-Independent-Judiciary-Be-Appropriate-to-Protect-Us-From-Appropriating-Governments http://www.scribd.com/doc/113312547/Ministry-Attorney-General-Responsible-for-DoublethinkOversight-of-No-Accused-Counsel-Illegal-Certainty http://www.scribd.com/doc/112776958/Attorney-General-Guardian-of-the-Public-Interest-PredeterminedNot-Responsible-for-His-Actions-Under-Section-8 http://www.scribd.com/doc/114245248/Conflict-of-Interest http://www.scribd.com/doc/115119918/Act-k-Agreement-Coilers-Tariff-Kleptocracy www.Romans13Defacto.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed
by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.[1] A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[2] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[3] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[4] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. (See below here and here for contrasting systems.) In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems. One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Particularly common law is in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,[5] and in countries that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including India,[6] the United States, Pakistan,[7] Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada, with the exception of Qubec where a mix of civil law (on the provincial level) and common law (mostly on the federal level) is used, Malaysia, Ghana, Australia,[8] Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore,[9] Myanmar, Ireland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados,[10] South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Botswana, Guyana and Israel.

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, whether sovereign or federated, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially written constitutions, also act as limiters of state power by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

fundamental rights.
Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it

abides by the said constitution's limitations.


According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for

the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry,


including those that may be in the minority."[7]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. The idea of human rights [3] states, "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day.

Indeed,
the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.[4] Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such 3

philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[8] All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights. The Charter is intended to protect certain political and civil rights of people in Canada

****from****
the policies and actions of all levels of government. It is also supposed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.[3][4] The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was introduced by the government of John Diefenbaker in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. Therefore, it was limited in scope and was easily amendable. This motivated some within government to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5] Hence, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982. Universal Declaration of Human Rights The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

though not legally binding,


was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The Assembly regularly takes up human rights issues. A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security. The peacekeeping budget for the 20052006 fiscal year was approximately US$5 billion, 2.5 billion (compared to approximately US$1.5 billion, 995 million for the UN core budget over the same period), with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[60] UN peace operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding scale, but including a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1 January 2011, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping 4

operations were: the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain and the Republic of Korea.[61] Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP and UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments. Most of this is financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations. Since their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been forced to cut services because of insufficient funding.[62] It has received barely a quarter of the total it needed for the 09/10 financial year.

Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights


in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.[5] Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights".[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.[52] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to theirshareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003: In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[54] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004,

but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[55]

Attorney General wears too many HATS Honor Among Thieves Systemic The role has been referred to as "judicial-like" and as the "guardian of the public interest".

Conflict of Interest no separation of powers


The Attorney General has a special role to play in advising Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that Cabinet actions are legally and constitutionally valid. A key component of the Attorney General's responsibilities to ensure the administration of justice in the province is the administration of the courts and as a result the responsibility for maintaining liaison with the judiciary. Given the fundamental importance of the

independence of the judiciary,


the responsibility for courts administration is often a very sensitive and delicate issue. Great care and respect for the principles of judicial independence must be exercised in this area. An important part of the Crown's - and thus the Attorney General's - responsibility in conducting criminal prosecutions is associated with the responsibility to represent the public interest which includes not only the community as a whole and the victim, but also

the accused.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law

without discrimination
and, in particular,

without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a

court of competent jurisdiction


to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect.
6

Law Society voices support for sustainable legal aid

Tuesday, February 13 Organization: Release: Law Society of Upper Canada TORONTO, Feb. 12 /CNW/ - The Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper
Canada, Gavin MacKenzie, today expressed the Law Society's continuing concern over the need

for a well-funded and sustainable system of legal aid


in Ontario. "We believe that the right of vulnerable citizens to legal assistance is an important
component of the administration of justice in a free and democratic society," the Treasurer said. "Since the Ontario Legal Aid Plan was founded in 1967, the Law Society has recognized that legal aid should be considered a right, not a charitable gift, and that individuals

are equal before the law

only
if they are assured the option of legal representation."
Since 1982 it was guaranteed to every individual and the taxpayers pay enough not to consider it a charity or anything else but a possession, personal property attached as an arm or a leg to the certainty every individual is protected from the criminal element that obviously the governments are the ultimate criminal element.
"More than a million Ontarians benefit from Legal Aid Ontario every year, many of them through our excellent clinic system", he added. "Legal aid also helps many vulnerable Ontarians with family law, criminal law, workers' compensation, immigration, landlord-tenant and other legal issues." But there are still many thousands of individuals in Ontario who cannot afford legal services and do not qualify for support from the system. The income threshold is far too low - if you earn just over $13,000 a

year you are too rich to qualify for legal aid. We are alarmed by the dramatic increase in the number of people who try to represent themselves in court without the benefit of legal representation or advice about their rights.

Others simply give up their right to a fair hearing. For all of these people, access to justice is denied."
7

What Ontario lawyers perceived in the 1920s, what the Joint Committee expressed in the
1960s, and what many people experience first-hand in Ontario courts every day, is that

individuals are equal before the law only if they are assured
the option of representation by counsel. In a democratic society, everyone should be able to participate fully in society and

have their rights protected.


Canada has an adversarial justice system that anticipates two roughly equal parties presenting their cases before a judge in a court of law. What happens if there is an imbalance of power between the two parties?
When an Ontarian cannot afford to hire a lawyer, an

imbalance of power exists,

especially
when the state is one of the parties,
as in criminal law and child protection cases. Legal aid attempts to correct

this imbalance by providing low-income individuals with legal representation. The legal aid system contributes

to ensuring
the potential for equal protection and benefit of
the law for the poor and disadvantaged in our society.

The Legal Aid system evidences the Law Society knows about every individuals guaranteed equal rights De jure while administering De facto exploiting the public SE IP PFEE Self Evident Ipso Facto Prima Facia Evidence Exposed

The following was published on the web

www.4urjustice.com Legal Associates | Everyone Deserves Equal Justice We give Everyone Equal Access Etched above the doors of the US Supreme Court are the words "Equal Justice Under Law." It's one of the basic principles of democracy. Unfortunately, in reality we receive about as much justice as we can afford. The wealthiest ten percent can afford to have a lawyer on retainer, and are accustomed to consulting with one before making decisions. On the other hand, the bottom ten percent has access to public aid. But what about the rest of us? For most people, the idea of calling a lawyer before taking legal action or making an important decision just isn't an option -- either because we think we don't need one or because it would simply cost too much. But there is a solution. Legal Associates is currently serving the legal needs of well over one million families for less than a dollar a day! Content copyright 2009. Legal Associates. All rights reserved.

So I sent them an e-mail


From: Frank Gallagher [mailto:frankly1@rogers.com] Sent: October-22-09 2:31 PM To: 'Jesse Magee' Subject: RE: Legal Associates | Feldman, Kramer & Monico Obviously any lawyer is in the business to cash in on the illegal administration and enforcement of purported to be democratic governments that demands equality and they publicly proclaim it, but do not enforce it, whereas private sector lawyers are set up to debate the non-debatable permitted by the obvious criminal frauds as you people admit on your site as I am well aware that a person can buy or rent all the rights they can afford, with the legal profession profiting from the woes of society that the legal system responsible to deal with it refuse to do so. The root of societys woes is the illegitimate legal system as CanLaw www.canlaw.com a Canadian national Lawyer referral service states on their front page that the Law Society cannot be trusted as they protect their members not the consumer. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9829583/Can-Law-August-182008 9

I went on to read more published on their site that gave me the crazy idea that they would help me in exposing the illegitimate legal system and they confirmed that I was a wild and crazy guy It is time to change to a legitimate government legal system that protects every individuals equality democratic rights internally as financed by the taxpayer to do so. I am Frank Gallagher Director/Operations Charter Democracy Force Justice Inc. www.cdfji.ca federally incorporated to Solicit Victims of Crime for Class Action Suits against Government Personnel whereas the majorities are victims 80 percent as you publish. We are operating under company name 1 LIFE www.1life.cC and have the site being professionally developed to sell membership and C-Note certificates for the express purpose to organize the majority providing them the democratic voice they are entitled to with equality, an entity every individual of the majority desires but not a probability unless equally supported to ensure the governments consistently enforce it. The Law Society is going down and abrupt change is eminent, not having a leg to stand on in an informed populace. I am considering attempting to bring a Law Firm on side with us though seemingly a venture into futility but nothing ventured, nothing gained. I provide you the opportunity to scrutinize my sites for consideration and eagerly await your response, though well aware of the depth of thought required to do an about face and the length of time it will take to study the evidence to be coherent to the validity and firmness of the rationale that can only conclude with the collapse of the present government legal systems once the public become informed. Please acknowledge receipt and your intention whether or not to consider Thank you Frank

I published on my Scribd site and not long after

poof

their web site was gone


Not much longer "Double Poof" 10

the document along with 250 others on my Scribd site were gone

11

From: lawmen@googlegroups.com [mailto:lawmen@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hurt Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:16 AM To: 'Lawmen' Subject: [Lawmen: 3525] Attorney Brad Henschel on becoming an attorney and the practice of law I thought you might appreciate this attorneys perspective on the practice of law and what it takes to become an attorney.

Bob Hurt 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 +1 (727) 669-5511 Scholar Fund Jurisdictionary Law Newsletter Archives Downloads GetZooks! From: Brad Henschel Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:38 PM To: lawsters@googlegroups.com; Bob Hurt; Lawmen; John Findley Subject: Re: Rich Cantwell's scurrilous screed about lawyers I went to law school in 1984 in order to help others with Tax problems and following the great example of Larry Becraft. I was 39 at the time. It was really difficult, especially at age 39 to go back to school. I had to go day and night and I had to study ALL THE TIME to get all the confusing information being presented to me. I found out later the teaching methods used in law schools, known was the socratic method was different from paralegal schools were the paralegals were simply told the truth of the course instead of just reading cases to learn what the law really was about, as was done in Law school. The cost was expensive even at UWLA, a State Bar but not ABA approved law school. I had 325 classmates, 1/2 being women. Only about 40-43 graduated and of them 20, including me, passed the State Bar Exam. 20 out of 325 people. Those 325 people were ALL better educated than I was. Most of them were already successful business people. One brought instant printing to the US from Japan. Another was a real estate investor who drove his rolls royce to school. These two dropped out. Another was the paralegal for King of Torts lawyer in San Francisco - she flunked out in Civil Procedure class. Another was a government employee. 12

- He moved to Texas never having passed the Bar Exam and he told me that information face to face. Another was the former Iranian Health Minister. Another was the daughter of a lawyer who quit 8 weeks ahead of graduation because she didn't want to be a lawyer, her father pressured her into it, so she quit. She had the highest grade average in the school. Learning the law is only 1/2 of the equation. Then you have to apply it, that's another learning curve. The pressure on lawyers is so extreme and the loss of sleep so pervausive that lawyers usually die before age 50. Cancer is rampant among lawyers as is mental illness due to the pressures. IF you worked two jobs at minimum wage you would have more money and work less than most lawyers work. Most of my law school classmates only wanted to make money. I wanted to learn the law and be good at it. When they saw me coming they would run away so they wouldn't have to talk law with me. I won a lot of cases before the Bar entered my life. Then I learned about how the Bar is really in place to prevent disruption to the large law firms, many of whom are now victims themselves of the economy. The law is like every other occupation, it has great people and it has scum and everything in between. The Bar is used to silence people like Richard Fine.

But mainly the general public doesn't understand legal ethics

?
They are mainly the antithesis of real world ethics. Clients think a bar complaint will force the attorney to be better. Richard Fine was disbarred after exposing judicial corruption of the highest order. The Bar and the legislature covered it up.

(Fails to inform Richard also incarcerated solitary confinement) Like Hess SSS
www.Romans13Defacto.com I had the State of Calif sanctioned $30k for programming their computers to violate the US Bankruptcy laws. I won case after case in criminal court and my motions in bankruptcy court for my clients resulted in the expungement of millions in taxes. www.Romans13Defacto.com

SSS
Clients in CA are now facing a lack of affordable attorneys or no attorneys to provide legal services to them as the CAL bar took out thousands of attorneys, leaving these people without legal representation and left them at the mercy of the government and it's lawyers. - Brad Henschel, JD, now an inactive member of the State Bar of CA.

HENSCHEL NOTICE OF PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is private and confidential. It contains confidential and privileged information which is both privileged & confidential under state and federal law and/or exempt from disclosure under law, including but not limited to the Electronic 13

Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521. NO reader may disclose, distribute or copy this email. If you get this e-mail in error, notify me immediately by electronic-mail reply and delete this original message. No recording, printing or sharing of this email, which has been sent over telephone lines, is allowed, and recording it is illegal. Cal. Penal Code 632.

From: Bob Hurt <bob@bobhurt.com> To: Lawmen <lawmen@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 4:48:32 PM Subject: Rich Cantwell's scurrilous screed about lawyers Rich: In your screed below, you denounce the MAJORITY of attorneys but supply NO facts to support your allegation. Because the lawyers bathwater has become dingy you seem to want to drown them, spank them, or toss them out. That seems a little crazy to me. We Need Attorneys. Lawyers comprise virtually the ONLY PEOPLE IN THIS NATION who can handle litigation competently, so the non-lawyer world generally cannot do without them. Even the lawyers admit that only a fool represents himself in court, and because of vexatious litigant laws, methods of blocking evidence from juries, and frivolous argument standards, even THEY cannot get justice in courts. They pay a fortune for education, pay a fortune to maintain offices, pay a fortune in personal time doing legal research, and pay a fortune for online and other law research services. They risk terrible sanctions and contempt citations whenever they stand up against deluded, incompetent, or corrupt judges, risk absolute destruction of their careers by professional foes in the bar, and then suffer substantial losses of income to clients who stiff them. Many, if not most, attorneys work 70-hour weeks, live on the edge of financial disaster, and take 5 to 10 years to build up a law practice that will allow them enough time and money to take their families on vacation every year. In spite of all that, most attorneys do pro bono work, giving of themselves to help those they consider deserving and unable to afford legal services. So why do you seek to excoriate them with colossally unfair generalizations like those in your obloquy below? Methinks thou doth protest too much. Way too. Licensing. Furthermore, you err in your pronouncements about licensing. The Constitution of Florida in Article V Section 15 empowers the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law: The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted. It integrated the bar in 1949 partly for that purpose. It has established, through the bar, rules for an independent examiner to determine the qualifications of applicants for membership. Upon successful qualification, the bar issues a bar number and card to the new member, and the Supreme Court clerk issues the LICENSE as attorney and counselor at law which the new attorney typically frames and hangs on the wall in the law office. You have seen many of these licenses, and if you 14

visit the Florida Bar web site you will find the bar number (the equivalent of the license number) for every attorney and jurist bar member in Florida. A Note about Smart People. You seem to imply that smart people (like most attorneys) screw other people (the relatively stupid, I presume). You fail to note that in many, if not most, cases a screwing simply cannot be helped. Should a teacher grind the education of a classroom of students to a snails pace in order to accommodate the stupid children in the classroom? Before busing that did not present much of a problem because smart people generally lived in different school districts from stupid people, owing to their relative abilities to buy nice houses in nice neighborhoods. Now, after busing, schools have honors classes to segregate the smart from the stupid. No matter what, stupid kids dont end up with as good an education as smart kids for the same reason that a pint jar cannot hold the amount of water that a quart jar can hold: inherent capacities simply cannot be exceeded. So, naturally, smart people generally exhibit more sense in managing money and their other affairs, and that can make them seem to take advantage of stupid people, particularly in a free-enterprise capitalist economic system. OUR particular system has in the past 100 years become burdened with thousands of laws and regulations that protect the stupid from the smart and the weak from the strong. But at the same time, our nations states have eliminated every vestige of eugenics laws that might eventually have obviated those protectionist laws. What do I mean here? Our land needs fewer stupid people in it, by at least an order of magnitude. Then caveat emptor wont seem like such a dirty term because far fewer people will seem screwed. And I mean that everybody, not just attorneys, need to learn the equivalent of the first two years of law school in their public education. Legitimate Complaints, with Solutions. Regardless of the licensing issue, you dont have a valid point to make in your anti-lawyer tirade, even though you could make some very valid points. Please allow me to make some of them for you: 1. Bar Integration Destroys Republic. a. The integration of the bar with the Supreme court makes every bar member a member of the Judicial Branch of government. The Florida Constitution requires in Article II Section 3 that The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. It does not permit bar members outside the judiciary except as Attorney General and State Attorneys and their assistant attorneys. All legislator attorneys and staff attorneys in the Legislative and Executive branches operate in violation of the Constitution and to that extent create a judicial oligarchy because the Supreme Court can and does exercise dominion over all of them. That violates CUSA Article IV Section 4 which provides in pertinent part The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. b. Solution: de-integrate the bar and turn the regulation of the practice of law over to the Executive branch. 15

2. Attorneys dont regulate judges, but tolerate judicial immunity. a. Attorneys form the pool from which judges rise to office, and so attorneys comprise the group best suited to lead in judicial reform for eliminating judicial corruption. They have the requisite skills and the proximity to judges, so they know better than any public other than victims of corruption which jurists have become corrupt or downright evil. They have let the people down because they dont use their bar to police the judiciary. In case you havent noticed, the bar governors and grievance committees ignore grievances against jurists. But they can and should work to revoke the bar licenses of corrupt judges, for that would disqualify the judges from office (the state constitutions typically make bar membership a qualification for becoming a jurist). Many attorneys fail to hold the courts accountable or engage in guerilla activism against crooked judges. By guerilla I mean a form of activism like hiring a Private Investigator to dig up the dirt on a judge, and then hiring a Public Relations agency to expose that dirt to the press and the public through blogs, etc, without the attorney coming under fire for bring disrepute to the profession. b. Solution: litigate and lobby against judicial immunity and for empowerment and independence of grand juries to investigate government employee crimes. 3. Unfair Business Practices. a. Some law firms overcharge for services rendered and overbill clients by charging for services not rendered. Some attorneys suffer from incompetence or laziness and dont give clients their best effort at advocacy. As a consequence, many people who need advocacy simply cannot afford the service, and of those who manage to afford it, many dont get adequate advocacy, and lose the case as a result. Pro bono work does not balance this out. The bar seems to turn a blind eye to much of this, and the public has no clue whether the attorney for hire will do a good job or not. b. Solution: Lobby for laws to require attorneys to give clients satisfaction questionnaires and make the results public. 4. Legal Services Monopoly. a. Attorneys seem loathe to campaign against the unfair Unlicensed Practice of Law statutes with which the bar and state attorneys attack private citizens who help one another with legal matters. They have helped create a legal services monopoly that has led to their overcharging for legal services. Attorneys really should become leaders in the communities 16

of their residence, guiding people in ways to keep our governments constitutional. Many dont seem to participate nearly to the extent they should or could. b. Solution: Lobby for change in UPL to apply only to specifically defined activities that actually require knowledge gained in law school or other special certification. The law should allow anybody to practice an area of law upon a demonstration of competent knowledge in that area. You have probably noticed that I offered solutions to each problem. Lawyers cannot implement three of the solutions by themselves. They need public support. You could help educate the public about their need to provide that support. You could encourage attorneys to do the lobbying. Many Attorneys Deserve Our Appreciation. Bottom line, instead of flaying the flesh off the stooped backs of overworked Patriot Attorneys, you ought to bless them for their general goodness and generosity, and encourage more to join their ranks and help them excise and bring to justice crooked judges and over-zealous prosecutors. What law professionals do you know who have created web sites and led movements to educate patriots in the law and constitutional principles, and to mobilize people to effective political activism? Can you name any? I can name three: 1. Larry Becraft http://hiwaay.net/~becraft - for at least 20 years, Larry has at some expense hosted a web site that does not sell his legal services, but educates people in the law and guides patriots away from harmful myths that will land them in prison, and guides students toward sound principles of economics. Larry spent hundreds of hours scanning and converting to searchable text the Statutes at Large for the income tax laws and the related Code of Federal Regulations, put them on DVDs, and makes them available via the web and on disk to serious students. He operates a radio show at his own expense weekly to educate people about tax issues and patriot myths, encouraging people to learn and use the law, and participate in honest government. 2. Tom Cryer http://truthattack.org for the past 2+ years, Tommy has led patriots in attacking the errors of the IRS, making a public, political issue of those errors (such as the Stop Thief rallies at post offices at tax time) and educating people about income tax laws and issues. He has posted all of Larrys searchable laws and codes on his web site, making them freely available to everyone. He co-hosts the radio show with Larry, as a public service, free. 3. Jon Roland http://constitution.org Jon does not practice as an attorney, but as an educator and law philosopher he devotes his life to helping our governments adhere to the Constitution and our people become better Citizens. He interacts with many attorneys and leaders in the Patriot movement to encourage people to become activists in reforming 17

our government and courts. His web site constitutes a treasure trove of related educational information, including Larrys searchable laws. I love these men. I invoke Gods most precious blessings upon them. I honor them for their devotion to truth and their selfless contributions to our nations underlying greatness. I dont examine them under a microscope for their peccadilloes, vices, and sins. I dont expect perfection of them. But, I do encourage them toward whatever perfection they can achieve in their short lives on this whirling rock. I encourage you to do the same.

Bob Hurt 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 +1 (727) 669-5511 Scholar Fund Jurisdictionary Law Newsletter Archives Downloads GetZooks! You received this because you have membership in the "Lawmen" Google Group. Comment to group owner - reply to the message (only the owner posts messages). See the archives, change options - visit http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen Join / Subscribe - send email to Lawmen+subscribe@googlegroups.com Resign / Unsubscribe- send email to Lawmen+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lawmen+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
********************************************

*** Note**** Bob Hurt never responded to me, as he and approximately 47,000 members use the information to sue the governments that is ultimately the taxpayer keeping them all busy in luxurious life style along with the other Bottom Feeder Piranha To get up to speed and have a daily diet of how corrupt governments are join Bob Hurt's lawmen+owners@googlegroups.com One massive group of Bottom Feeder Piranha that donate to Bob's lawmen for information to sue the asses off the government's 90% majority taxpayers Please fasten your seat belts 18

A confidential e-mail from an Attorney states if a lawyer does the legal thing he or she will be called to the Bar and dismissed

I looked into it further to find that Richard Fine was not only dismissed from the Bar, but put behind bars and has been in solitary confinement for over 18 months now without charges laid against him presumably holding him there until the Bilderberg New World Order is in place having been meeting since 1954 began their initiative in 2007 with the world financial collapse that we ain't seen nothing yet.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine/ Please join the Facebook Cause: FREE THE LA-FIPs (Los Angeles Falsely Imprisoned Persons) http://www.causes.com/causes/222335/about INTRODUCTION - MULTI-IDIOMAS English Intro: Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case. Richard Fine attempted to have his habeas corpus reviewed by the United States courts, from the US District Court, through the US Court of Appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States; however, all United States courts involved in the matter denied Richard DOCUMENTS The two records below, produced by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, and by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as the legal foundation for the holding of Richard Fine are alleged as fraud, each on its own. Moreover, the production of contradictory records by the two justice system agencies of Los Angeles County is alleged as additional fraud to top it off. 1) View the FALSE AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING records provided by Sheriff Lee Baca in letter to Los Angeles County Supervisor, Michael Antonovich, in response to request for access to the California public records that were the non-existing warrant and booking records of Richard Fine. For over a year, Sheriff Lee Baca insists on providing false records - claiming that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of the "San Pedro Municipal Court". No such court has existed for almost a decade: http://inproperinla.com/10-01-08-antonovich-ltr-repeat-mailing-w-attch-env-s.pdf

19

2) View the FALSE ON ITS FACE March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt. Such judgment record is missing any authentication at all. It was stamped on its face "FILED" with the date of March 4, 2009, but signed on its last page by Judge Yaffe and dated March 24, 2009. Such judgment was never entered as required by California Code to make it "effectual for any purpose": http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copyfrom-us-dist-ct-habeas-corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf MISSING DOCUMENTS The case of Richard Fine documented a pattern of publication of false records in online public access systems, and denial of access to or missing true judicial records: 1) The Los Angeles Superior Court in Marina v LA County (BS109420) published a false online "Case Summary", but denied access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) in the case management system of the court. 2) The Sheriff of Los Angeles County in re: Richard I Fine, (Inmate #1824367) published false online arrest and booking records in its "Inmate Information Center", but denied access to the true Los Angeles County Booking Record of Inmate Richard Fine. 3) The US District Court, Los Angeles in Fine v Baca (2:09-cv-01914) published a false online "PACER docket", which the Clerk of the Court refuses to certify, but denied access to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filing - the authentication records) in the case, and to the paper record, which was Richard Fine's commencing record - the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was allegedly adulterated at the US District Court. 4) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit in Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) and Fine v Sheriff (09-56073) published false online "PACER dockets", but denied access to the NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity - the authentication records), and also to critical records filed by respondents in the appeal. 5) The US Supreme Court in Fine v Baca (09-A827) published a false online "docket" noting denials on both March 12, 2010 and April 23/26, 2010, which were not supported by the Court records in the case. Any evidence of valid judicial review of the Application was missing from the Court file. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35193676/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/34940014/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834530/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/35014599/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/35149271/ COMPLAINTS 20

Below are links to two complaints filed with the office of US Attorney, Central District of California - for public corruption and deprivation of rights in the case of Richard Fine: 1) View complaint filed with US Attorney Office, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights by the California Judicial Council and California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George, relative to their conduct in the habeas corpus at the US District Court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33879469/ 2) View the Complaint filed July 8, 2010 against Judge David Yaffe and Sheriff Lee Baca - for Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights in re: Imprisonment of Richard Fine:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/ 3) View the Complaint filed July 1, 2010, against Counsel Danny Bickell, of the US Supreme Court, alleging public corruption and deprivation of rights relative to his conduct in the Application Fine v Baca (09-A827). http://www.scribd.com/doc/33772313/

PETITION WE ASK SHERIFF LEE BACA TO USE HIS DUE AUTHORITY AND PROPERLY ADDRESS THE LEGAL, CIVIL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF AN AMERICAN, INMATE RICHARD FINE (CJ INMATE 1824367). WE PRAY SHERIFF LEE BACA REVIEW THE ARREST AND BOOKING RECORDS, AND IF FOUND NOT CONFORMING WITH THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE LAW - INITIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND IMMEDIATELY RELEASE ATTORNEY RICHARD FINE. WITH IT, THE SHERIFF MAY MARK A NEW BEGINNING FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY JUSTICE SYSTEM, WITH DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL, CIVIL, AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL... Executive Summary: Instant petition is filed with Los Angeles County Sheriff LEE BACA, to use his due authority and properly address the legal, civil and human rights of an American, inmate RICHARD FINE (#1824367). Reconstructed Chronology: - Prior to the March 4, 2009 proceeding, a request was forwarded by the court of Judge David Yaffe to the Sheriff Department to have the Warrant Detail present in the proceeding, with the understanding that the proceeding would end with the sentencing and jailing of Attorney Richard Fine for contempt. - On March 4, 2009 Judge David Yaffe indeed pronounced such sentence in open court, as evidenced in the Court Reporter's transcript. Through such oral directives, Judge Yaffe misled the Sheriff's Warrant Detail to arrest Attorney Richard Fine at 11:05 am - albeit - with no written, valid, and effectual warrant at all. - On March 4, 2009, at 11:05 am, the Sheriff's Warrant Detail arrested Richard Fine in open court, at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, albeit - with no warrant at all. 21

- On March 4, 2009 Judge Yaffe then left the courtroom, and likewise - left the Warrant Detail with no record as an adequate legal foundation for the arrest. Instead, Judge Yaffe proceeded to create a second, contradictory record in the court file. The court file to this date does not reflect any sentencing or jailing at all. In fact, the March 4, 2009 proceeding was entirely omitted from the record! - On March 4, 2009, at 12:32 pm, the Sheriff's Warrant Detail, having no record as foundation for the arrest and jailing, recorded the arrest and booking of Richard Fine as if they had taken place on location, and pursuant to the authority of the non-existent "San Pedro Municipal Court." Such records were a false and deliberately misleading records, and out of compliance with the law. They had no valid court order or judgment as its foundation. No such court had existed for almost a decade! The false and deliberately misleading booking record is the main subject of instant petition. - On March 4, 2009, at 4:31 pm, papers were received by the Sheriff's Department through an anonymous fax transmission, unauthenticated, and with no cover sheet, from "Judicial Services". Such papers reflected yet a third, again false and deliberately misleading set of retroactive records for the arrest and booking of Richard Fine. Such records included invalid records: (a) The March 4, 2009 Remand Order and (b) the March 4, 2009 Judgment for contempt. On such background it was understandable why Sheriff Lee Baca refused to respond to Attorney Richard Fine's habeas corpus petition, and likewise - why Sheriff Lee Baca has refused to allow access to the California public records, which are the arrest and booking record of Richard Fine. Pleading: We pray Sheriff Lee Baca review the arrest and booking records, and if such records are found failing to conform with the fundamentals of the law - take corrective actions and immediately release Attorney Richard Fine. With it, the Sheriff may mark a new beginning for the Los Angeles County justice system, with dignity of the legal, civil, and human rights of all. Joseph Zernik, PhD Jz12345@earthlink.net Human Rights Alert (NGO) o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> style='width:201pt;height:103.5pt'> o:href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4QooSf0l1yE/S7GNMg5PW6I/AAAAAAAABRQ/sdbzbE4EqpM/S1 600-R/HRA%20Logo.jpg"/>

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

Frank, You signed on May 25, 2010.

22

Your signature has been delivered to: Sheriff Lee Baca, Los Angeles County, California About

What have the experts said over the past decade? * "Innocent people remain in prison" * "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of... LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted. Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) Please see additional information and sign the petition: FREE RICHARD FINE http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free... Positions 1. Richard Fine is held under false records - he must be immediately released 2. Official reports show that thousands were falsely imprisoned as part of the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) they must be immediately released. 3. Review of the computerized records of the Sheriff's Department documented routine ongoing false imprisonments - they must be stopped.

23

4 US and/or international investigation must be instituted of the widespread public corruption in Los Angeles County, California.

How large is the cause?


The innocent must be freed and the guilty made to recompense the victims NOT THE TAXPAYER Attorney General there to OJ Obstruct Justice Preventing cases getting to court The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General's agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid

the decision
as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney. Judge there to say evidence that would hold them in disrepute not admissible as
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Bar to disbar lawyers attempting sanity

But mainly the general public doesn't understand legal ethics


Saddle up to the bar boys Bar to Bar Justice (Page 12)

Pick your Knows 24

Rule of Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law The Rule of law in its most basic form is no one is above the law. Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with, publicly disclosed laws, adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The rule of law is hostile to dictatorship and to anarchy. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include

a clear separation of powers,

legal certainty,
the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all before the law. The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase the rule of law has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general overuse" GO POE General Over-use Proclamations Only Elusivity publicly disclosed laws 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency,

of no force or effect.

25

Legal Certainty???

www.Tree13.com 26