Welcome to the Real
World
“We Blacks were already familiar with terrorism. For us, slavery and lynchings were a form of
terrorism.” – Lawyer Vernon E. Jordan Jr., on The PBS News hour (11/26/01)
NOTE: The court case to which the below “pleadings” refer ended December
2005. Due to the dishonesty and
incompetence of the numerous “judges” involved therein, we “lost the battle”
(case), but “we won the war,” i.e., the plaintiff never received a penny of the
money they sued for and we now have a rather substantial record of “In Justice” perpetrated by the courts, to quote the name of a new legal
TV series starring Kyle
MacLachlan.
Not only that, we have a vast record of similar injustice experienced by
numerous other individuals in “their” so-called “justice” courts. As time allows, in the future, this website
will document the same. YOU’VE BEEN
WARNED: ALL JUSTICE COURTS ARE A HOAX.
ALL.
Purpose: We help others see that the system is not what it
appears to be. We wake others up to the
fact that their perceptions about reality may be the opposite of what they are
calling reality. We make suggestions
for altering personal behavior so that our perceptions about society and the
world around us can start to match our day-in and day-out reality. We focus on matters legal and, in the
future, may expand to include other subjects.
Present focused subject matter: The unauthorized practice
of law and its relationship to
discrimination, denial of justice, human rights, equal protection, due process,
equal access to justice, free markets, freedom of choice, freedom of
association, privacy, the right to contract, the right to assistance,
court-supported monopolies, cartels, protection rackets, i.e., organized
coercion.
Perception: In a great many “representative”
democracies around the world, in exchange for an ongoing pledge of allegiance
both expected and required from childhood, many governments promise truth,
justice, equality, and the freedom to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit
happiness, among other things.
Reality: A well-intended promise? Mere perception, or something in
between? You be the judge …
A Basic Primer:
Linda Kennedy on the
reality behind courts of injustice and a letter to the media
Arizona paralegals
try to keep the Arizona Bar from putting them out of business
Arizona
Republic Editorials on the Need for Reform in their own State Courts
Arizona
Republic “My Turn” Editorial on UPL
The case for
repealing unauthorized practice of law statutes or having them struck down by
the courts as unconstitutional by
George Leef
The case for a
free market in legal services by
George Leef (adobe format)
The case for a
free market in legal services (identical
to above document, in web page format)
Cato Institute
Letters on UPL George Leef
responses (adobe format)
David Berens
on The Case for the Free Market Provision of Legal Services
Lawyers
Don’t Need Three Years of Law School by
Andrew Peyton Thomas, an assistant attorney general for Arizona.
The Case of the
Kentucky Bar versus Della Tarpinian
Documents That Will Be
Filed with the World’s Courts with Your Help:
Mail-in
version of our petition: English
World Anti-Bar Petition
Sign our new online petition at Petitions Online by clicking here.
Documents Filed with
Arizona’s Courts:
(Note: The formatting of these documents is
slightly altered from the originals due to their conversion to web pages. They are otherwise identical to the
originals, i.e. verbatim. Only contact information has been removed.)
Motion for Disqualification
and Recusal of Bar Members
(9/23/02)
Asked a Superior Court Presiding
Judge to disqualify and recuse himself from hearing any anti-UPL cause for lack
of impartiality and to also reverse his previous order requiring another
Superior Court Judge to violate his own ethics rules “because the Arizona
Constitution prohibits a non-bar member from acting as a “superior” court
judge.
Motion for
Disqualification for Lack of Impartiality (8/19/02)
Asked
the Arizona Supreme Court to disqualify itself from any issue pertaining to bar
membership for lack of neutrality.
Motion
to Strike or Dismiss the Bar’s Petition to Change the Rules (filed on 7/17/02)
Asked
the Arizona Supreme Court to strike or dismiss the State Bar of Arizona’s
petition to further consolidate its monopoly.
Petition
for Special Action Against the State Bar of Arizona (7/9/02)
Asked
the Arizona Supreme Court to require the State Bar of Arizona to justify its
existent being that their own Constitution (their alleged “supreme law”),
purports to make their “state” a so-called “right to work” state.
Petition
to Repeal Arizona Supreme Court Rules 31-74 (5/23/02)
Asked
the Arizona Supreme Court to either get rid of their “State Bar of Arizona” or
to hold a public trial to test who does more harm to the consumers of legal
services (i.e., the public), “unauthorized” practitioners of law or
“authorized” (“bar members”).
Motion to Have
Plaintiff’s Counsel Removed (3/18/02)
Asked a
Superior Court judge to remove a plaintiff’s lawyer from off a case for repeatedly
violating his own ethical rules of professional conduct and then repeatedly
lying about doing so once confronted with the facts.
Response to Motion for
Reconsideration (4/19/01) – soon to be posted
Asked
the Superior Court judge not to grant the opposition’s request that it retract
its written permission to allow a non-lawyer son of a defendant to assist his
mother at trial by “asking questions and offering argument.”
Motion to Dismiss Petition (10/9/01) –
soon to be posted
Asked
the higher Court of Appeals judges not to grant the opposition’s request that
it order the Superior Court judge to prohibit the non-lawyer son of a defendant
from further assisting his mother, whether verbally or in writing.
Request for Oral Argument (10/09/01)
Asked the
Court of Appeals to allow the non-lawyer son of a defendant to explain why a
poor foreign-born immigrant that is not knowledgeable in legal process or the
law cannot enjoy justice without any assistance whatsoever, contrary to the
supreme laws of the land promising equal protection under the law and due
process.
Response to Petition (10/19/01)
Further
developed and expanded the above described Motion to Dismiss.
Reply to Response (10/29/01)
A Reply
supporting the above described Motion to Dismiss.
Motion for Interlocutory Order (10/31/01)
Asked
the Court of Appeals to grant leave to file a final Reply to the opposition’s
final Reply supporting their Petition for Special Action which had asked the
Court of Appeals to order the Superior Court judge to prohibit the non-lawyer
son of a defendant from assisting his mother further, whether in or out of
Court, whether verbally and/or in writing.
Motion for Clarification and
Judicial Notice (11/05/01)
Asked
the Court of Appeals to take mandatory judicial notice of the ‘adjudicative’
fact that they are now in violation of their own oath of office to support
their own supreme laws, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution.
Application for Order to Show
Cause (11/6/01)
Asked
the Superior Court judge to dismiss the opposition’s case if they could not
state how the Court is supposed to proceed without the judge first violating
his oath of office to protect individual rights and administer justice in all
cases now that they have successfully gotten the Court of Appeals to deny the
defendant any ability to respond meaningfully, i.e., get justice, by
prohibiting her the assistance of her only method of responding at all, her
non-lawyer son. In the alternative, it
asked the Court to join her son as a fellow co-defendant.
Motion to Suspend the Rules (11/19/01)
Asked
the Court of Appeals to suspend any and all case law and/or rules that they
might utilize in order to prohibit the non-lawyer son of a defendant from filing
a Petition for Special Action of their own on behalf of himself and his mother
showing why the case in the underlying Superior Court civil action is actually
totally and completely frivolous.
Motion for Reconsideration (11/19/01)
Asked
the Court of Appeals to reverse its order accepting jurisdiction on the
opposition’s Petition for Special Action and grant the relief requested by
them, namely, to order the Superior Court judge to prohibit the non-lawyer son
of a defendant from assisting his mother further and bring about a default
judgment for lack of funds to pay a lawyer.
Reply Supporting Motion for
Clarification & for Interlocutory Order (11/23/01)
A Reply
supporting the above described motions for clarification and motion for
interlocutory order.
Reply Supporting Motion for
Suspension of the Rules (12/4/01)
A Reply supporting the above
described motion to suspend to rules.
Arizona Law,
International Law, International Treaties & UPL:
Arizona Code
of Judicial Conduct – An Arizonan Judge’s Ethical Rules
World
Constitution (1946)
International
Human Rights Instruments
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (12/16/66)
International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (12/16/66)
Miscellaneous Documents:
History of the
State Bar of Arizona
State Bar of
Arizona Legislation (1/31/97)
State Bar of
Arizona UPL Task Force
Teach Your Child
About Politics
Food for Thought
(some thought-provoking quotes)
How You Can Help:
Order
a copy of our new book by clicking here.
Any
donations would help us defray the costs associated with fighting for truth,
justice and authentic freedom. This
includes court filing fees, gasoline, photocopies, stationary, postage, etc. Second, we are interested in finding
statements written by lawyers, or non-lawyers, in days gone by predicting that
mandatory bar membership will be used to either form a ‘legal’ monopoly, or to
raise attorneys fees to such a high degree as to make them unaffordable to most
people, i.e., turn justice into an item to be bought and sold like any other
commodity thereby denying justice, equal protection, due process, etc. to all
but the very rich. These types of statements can be found in the records
of debates before voting on bills to ‘integrate’ or ‘organize’ ‘bars,’ as they
are called, or histories written about bars, or op-ed pages in old
newspapers. Any help you can offer to track down such historical records
would be greatly appreciated and might even be brought before the Arizona
Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, and or be prominently displayed
on this website. Third, any
suggestions, tips, etc., may be e-mailed to the webmaster using the below link
provided for that purpose. Fourth, let
us know about any other issues where the promises (propaganda) given do not
match the reality. We will help you get
the word out through the media, including showing you how to
do-it-yourself. If you’d like to be a
guest on our internet or radio show, or know someone that should be, let us
know about that as well.
Fill
out this survey and
e-mail your answers to us.
Resources:
http://www.lib.az.us/ (the State Archives
link for the library on the 3rd floor of the Arizona Capitol)
Upcoming Projects:
1.
Petition for Special Action, if the
Superior Court judge makes another fundamental error.
2.
Petition for Review to the Arizona Supreme
Court. (done)
3.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court. (done)
4.
Federal Injunction based upon the U.S.
Const. 14th amendment and U.S. treaties.
5.
Petition an International Court if all U.S.
Courts fail to follow their own rules.
6.
Spread the word to all media outlets, e.g.,
print, radio, TV, cable, internet, etc.
How to Change The System
Quickly and Simply:
You
can start by clicking here
for a few easy to follow suggestions.
Your visit
to this site implies acceptance of our terms of use and
disclaimer.
Messages
sent here may not receive a reply: “lawemail7 (at) yahoo.com”.
Copy
& paste address into email - replace “(at)” with “@” (You
can't just click on an
email
link here because active links get spidered and leads to endless junk email.)
Report
broken links to the webmaster at the same e-mail address.
This site
and its contents are copyrighted. All
rights reserved world wide.